Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Education Mentoring Volunteers

Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on the volunteers in education mentoring programme at the university of Warwick.

Charles Clarke: The Government-funded education mentoring programme in Warwick is helping young people to realise their potential and strengthening voluntary groups and neighbourhoods. The project will receive £55,999 per annum for the years 2004–05 and 2005–06. Last year, 200 students volunteered in over 40 schools. It is an important scheme that shows that we can develop this in many ways. I am grateful for the support that my hon. Friend has given it.

Jim Cunningham: I cannot stress enough the importance of that scheme, particularly in inner cities and deprived areas. Does my right hon. Friend have plans to expand the scheme up and down the country?

Charles Clarke: We do. There is a range of such schemes, including an interesting one pioneered by Simon Singh, the author, to get maths students to spend part of their course acting as teaching assistants in maths classes in local schools. We are drawing up detailed proposals for a major expansion of precisely that type of work because we have seen the benefits to which my hon. Friend referred.

School Sports Facilities

James Purnell: What research his Department has commissioned on the use of school sports facilities by the community outside school hours.

Margaret Hodge: The evaluation of the first extended schools pathfinder projects, which includes an evaluation of the use of school sports facilities, was published earlier this year and is available in the House of Commons Library. It shows that many schools make their sports facilities available to the community. We are also evaluating the next phase of our programme to develop extended schools across the country and the use of school sports facilities will be part of that evaluation.

James Purnell: I welcome the extended schools project, but is it enough? There are two things we all know from our constituencies. First, young people are crying out for more facilities and, secondly, we are rebuilding all the playing fields and sports facilities that were sold off by the previous Government. Can we ensure that those facilities are used in the evenings and weekends? In the light of the report on obesity by the Select Committee on Health, do not we need to require all schools to provide those facilities in the evenings and weekends, in co-operation with sports organisations, local councils and the youth service?

Margaret Hodge: It is extremely important that we develop school sports facilities not just for young people, so that they have somewhere to go and something to do, but for wider use by the community. I agree with my hon. Friend that our measures to preserve school playing fields for their proper use have helped to encourage that, but I am less sure that we should make it compulsory for schools to extend that use. I believe that our extended sports programme will capture the imagination of head teachers and governing bodies and that they will choose of their own volition to extend their facilities to the wider community.

Roy Beggs: School sports facilities represent a huge resource and investment and, if we are honest, they have never been fully utilised by the community. Will the Minister encourage school principals and governors, perhaps for the first time, to promote the use of those facilities and make it more widely known that they are available, because in the past school principals and governors reacted only to requests to use such facilities?

Margaret Hodge: I agree. I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports our programme of over £1 billion of investment, with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to improve and extend school sports facilities. It is important that they should be available not just to the young people who attend the school but to the wider community, which will benefit from that. Parents and grandparents will benefit from participating in the activities of the school that their children and grandchildren attend.

Lorna Fitzsimons: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the significant investment in sporting facilities in many schools in Rochdale. However, one problem should be looked at: the issue of revenue and ensuring that capital is used effectively. Sometimes, the community that is most local to the new facilities is excluded because of the pricing policy. Can some work be done to look at revenue to ensure that capital is used to best effect in many of the communities that are most in need?

Margaret Hodge: As part of our programme of investment for the years to 2008, we are examining how to bring together all the sources of funding to make better use of facilities in schools as part of the extended schools programme. Part of that will involve looking at Government, local government, the role of the voluntary sector and individual contributions to see how those resources can be brought to bear to enhance and sustain those important facilities, which contribute so much to the well-being of the community.

Charles Hendry: Does the Minister accept that a major threat to the use of school sports facilities by the wider community is the problem in finding volunteers to teach the sports? Has she read the reports in the Daily Mail this week that highlight the consequences of the compensation culture, which is forcing the cancellation of sports lessons because people are no longer prepared to volunteer as instructors because of the huge growth in the threat of litigation? Does she understand that all the fine words about encouraging sports in schools to promote good health and tackle obesity are worthless if she allows the development of a culture that drives away the dedicated people who give freely of their time to teach those sports?

Margaret Hodge: I agree that volunteers have an important contribution to make not only in the use of sports facilities in schools but in the wider enhancement of potential and opportunity for the children in those schools. However, we as a Government have been extremely successful in encouraging the involvement of volunteers right the way through the lives of children and young people, not least in the millennium volunteers programme, which we launched and which now involves hundreds of thousands of young people in the extension of volunteering. We also have a volunteer programme for sports facilities that links schools to local sports clubs across the whole range of sports. Those clubs are bringing their expertise back into school life through particular sports facilities. We want to carry on encouraging that. This is not a life of dependency, but a life of opportunity.

Selection Policy

Claire Ward: If he will make a statement on provision for review of the independent schools adjudicator's decisions on schools selection policy.

David Miliband: Schools adjudicators are independent of the Secretary of State and their decisions can be challenged only through the courts.

Claire Ward: My hon. Friend will be aware that, in Hertfordshire during the past year, we have had several challenges on selection policy and the adjudicator's decisions have also been challenged, causing considerable delay and stress to parents, schools and pupils. Will my hon. Friend consider how he could assist the adjudicator to come to more robust decisions? To create some stability, will he consider the possibility that the adjudicator's decisions must hold for a certain amount of time, perhaps two or three years, before they can be challenged again?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important point. In 32 cases, the adjudicators have reduced the amount of selection being carried out by schools. Any school that is thinking of reversing the adjudicator's decision—I think that my hon. Friend is referring to such a case in Hertfordshire—should think carefully about potential future challenges, the implications of previous adjudicator decisions and the uncertainty that such a reversal might cause to parents and pupils.

Secondary Schools (Cheshire)

Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on the funding of secondary schools in Cheshire.

Stephen Twigg: On the latest available figures, funding for secondary pupils in Cheshire increased by £630 per pupil in real terms between 1997–98 and 2003–04.

Ann Winterton: Is the Minister aware of the financial problems that smaller comprehensive schools that lack a sixth form and do not have access to social deprivation funding face because of the recurrent budget cuts in Cheshire? They are schools, I hasten to add, that have addressed staff overspend and now have a good balance and that have provided clear evidence of strict financial planning.

Stephen Twigg: I am aware of that and aware that the hon. Lady wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards about Middlewich high school. Officials in the Department are considering her letter, including the enclosure from the head teacher of that school, and liaising closely with officials in the local education authority in Cheshire. We will get back to the hon. Lady with a full response shortly.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend will know the tremendous progress that has been made in school developments in my constituency and the Secretary of State recently visited one of our superb new primary schools. However, we have a problem with the development of specialist schools. A particular school is finding it very difficult to get anywhere near the £50,000 target that it needs to raise. Will my hon. Friend look closely at the needs of Sutton high school and help me to work with it to find solutions to that problem?

Stephen Twigg: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that undertaking. At earlier stages in the specialist schools programme, a number of schools around the country pointed out the difficulties that they had with the £50,000 requirement. Although we believe that most schools should be able to fulfil that requirement, we have established the partnership fund, which might be a source of support for my hon. Friend's school. I shall be happy to keep in touch with him as that matter progresses.

George Osborne: Does the Minister agree that the funding mechanism restricts choice in places such as Cheshire? Each year, I receive many letters from parents who are bitterly disappointed because they cannot get their children—often along with other members of their primary school class—into popular local secondary schools. Does he agree that, given that those secondary schools often want to accept such children, we should let the money follow the pupil and allow the good secondary schools to expand?

Stephen Twigg: Of course, that is exactly what we do; indeed, we have provided the opportunity for the most successful schools to expand where such potential exists. But Labour Members want to ensure that every neighbourhood in every part of the country has the highest quality schools, so that that option is available for the many, not just for the few.

Building Schools for the Future (Derbyshire)

Mark Todd: What representations he has received concerning Derbyshire county council's building schools for the future bid.

David Miliband: We have received two representations relating to the use of private finance initiative credits, and to the announcement of the next waves of investment. In addition, an official from the Department has met representatives of Derbyshire county council.

Mark Todd: The Government have a good story to tell in support of secondary education in South Derbyshire, particularly for schools such as John Port, to which £5 million was recently allocated for new and replacement buildings. However Derbyshire's building schools for the future programme focuses on the county's former coalfield communities, and in my area on schools in the Swadlincote community—William Allitt, Pingle and Granville—which are working closely with the local education authority on an exciting element of that bid. Will my hon. Friend bear that bid very strongly in mind in the next round?

David Miliband: I am sure that my hon. Friend will want me to rehearse the rise in capital funding in Derbyshire since 1997—from £4 million to £40 million in this financial year. I certainly take very seriously his point about the need in coalfield communities for the sort of investment that he recommends, but, of course, Labour Members are committed to such investment throughout the country, starting in the areas of greatest need.

Patrick McLoughlin: In wave 1 of this programme, of the 12 authorities that were successful only one was a shire council. Why?

David Miliband: In fact, there are 14 authorities in wave 1, including two reserves. [Interruption.] Actually, 14 plus two reserves makes 16. The numeracy hour beckons for a certain Conservative Front Bencher. Perhaps he is auditioning for the role of shadow Secretary of State; I notice that the current one is not here today.
	The simple answer to the question of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) is that wave 1 was conducted on the basis of need; indeed, that is the basis on which all waves of the programme will be prioritised and on which we shall deal with the whole country.

Dennis Skinner: Can the Minister explain why Derbyshire did not get in on the first round and may I add my support to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) to ensure that Derbyshire is included in the next round? Every single pit in the county is closed, many of the schools are ancient and Shirebrook in particular—as well as Swadlincote—should be high on the list. I hope that the Minister will provide the right answer.

David Miliband: This is obviously an important issue so far as Shirebrook and Swadlincote are concerned and I hope that we will be able to cover all the issues. We had 52 applications for the first wave of the building schools for the future programme, in 2005–06, and we prioritised on the basis of need and of the impact on educational standards. We were able to help only 14, with two reserves, but I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments about Derbyshire's needs.

Harry Barnes: Is my hon. Friend aware that, under the previous Government, Derbyshire county council received abysmal funding? This Government have more or less corrected that through the capital investment to which he has referred, but the past is still chained around our necks. On the programme of phased provision, it is important that we get such investment this year, particularly given that we missed it last year. It is especially necessary in areas of deprivation and the first five schools that would be provided for are in North-Eastern Derbyshire.

David Miliband: I know that Derbyshire has submitted three projects to be considered across the life of the programme. I am glad to hear that Shirebrook is one of them. I hope for my hon. Friend's sake that it is in the top priority group that has been submitted by the LEA, not in the other two. I appreciate what he says about the difference that has been made. We want to make sure that there are modern learning facilities for all pupils, because that is vital for their education.

School Starting Age

Graham Allen: If he will make it his Department's policy to require children from areas of traditionally low educational attainment to start school in the year in which they are five, rather than the term in which they are five; and if he will make a statement.

Margaret Hodge: There are no plans to change the age when compulsory school starts. However, from April this year every three and four-year-old became entitled to free early education either in a school or in a private or voluntary pre-school setting.
	We also have more than 500 Sure Start programmes, working with children and families in disadvantaged areas. By 2008, we plan to open at least 1,700 children centres delivering integrated child care and early education, together with family support and health services for children under five in the poorest communities.

Graham Allen: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she accept that, in areas of chronic educational under-attainment, it is important that there is a £3,000 grant for youngsters? It is important that we have on-site provision of further education in schools. However, the most important thing—certainly in my constituency it is essential—is that money is spent at the earliest opportunity. A pound spent on five-year-olds is worth £20 spent on those over 16. Will my hon. Friend look at the work of the city of Nottingham and consider writing to me about the possibility of all five-year-olds being at school for a full year rather than starting in the term in which they are five?

Margaret Hodge: I agree with my hon. Friend. All the research evidence further confirms his view that the early years of a child's life are crucial and determine children's outcomes as they grow up. I am sure that he agrees that a good early-years programme goes beyond early education and encompasses family support and community health services. I will write to him about his suggestion for his constituency. I am happy to discuss with him how we can raise attainment among young people in his constituency.

Jonathan R Shaw: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). There is extensive research to show that, for boys born in the summer who start school at an early age, an early start affects their educational attainment and life opportunities, so it is an issue worthy of consideration. Of course, the Sure Start programme helps in the areas that have been referred to. We have 500; we need 500 more. I hope that they will be a priority for spending in the comprehensive spending review. Ministers should keep their minds open to creating flexibility and paths for individuals rather than making individuals fit into the system.

Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend is right to bring our attention to the research on outcomes for summer-born children. The fact that we have extended the opportunity for early education to all three and four-year-olds will mitigate the phenomenon to some extent. We should begin to understand how that affects children's opportunities before we consider changing the compulsory school starting age. We keep these matters constantly under review. Everything that happens in the early years of a child's life from birth to five, including what we do to support parents, is crucial to the outcome when that child grows up.

Special Educational Needs

Tony Cunningham: What effects the Government's strategy for special educational needs will have on children with special needs.

Charles Clarke: The strategy that we published early this year will significantly help to improve the quality of education of children with special needs. The strategy contains a programme of practical measures to promote early identification of children's special educational needs, boost early intervention on the basis of that identification, improve co-ordination of services to children and their families, improve staff training and build strong collaboration between mainstream and special schools to share knowledge and expertise. They will help to provide the opportunities and support for children with special educational needs to realise their full potential.

Tony Cunningham: Last Friday, as part of autism awareness week, I met parents in west Cumbria whose children suffer from autism. Will my right hon. Friend tell us what the Government are doing to deal with those children's special needs?

Charles Clarke: Yes, I certainly can. One of the strengths of our strategy is that we focus on each special educational need's characteristics and then build a partnership between the voluntary organisations concerned, the education service and the health service to address that special need. I appreciate the work done in national autism week to highlight these issues, and as part of early support pilot programme, we will shortly provide guidance for the parents of nought to three-year-olds who are diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder. I hope that that will help to build the early identification and intervention that is so necessary and such a central part of our programme.

Phil Willis: A year ago, Ofsted delivered the most damning indictment of special educational needs provision in mainstream schools. A year later, we have had a strategy document, but absolutely nothing else. Statistics released today show that, last year, 6,000 students with SEN were permanently excluded from their schools. Students are nine times more likely to be excluded if they have a special educational need than if they have not. Over the past year, how many additional teachers have been trained and recruited to meet Ofsted's requirement? How many schools have had whole-staff training to meet the needs of the inclusion programme? What is the Secretary of State doing specifically to deal with the abhorrent permanent exclusion of children with SEN conditions from our schools?

Charles Clarke: I simply do not accept the catalogue that the hon. Gentleman describes, but he is right to suggest that the situation is serious in many parts of the country, as Ofsted identified. I agree that major issues need to be addressed, but we are implementing our strategy and the resources involved are substantial. For example, in 2003–04, funding for special educational needs was almost £3.5 billion—13 per cent. of the overall schools budget—of which about £1.5 billion was spent on SEN in special schools and £1.7 billion on special provision in mainstream education and so on. There is a major commitment. We are working with the associations and local government to deliver in this respect. He is right to raise his concerns and to press them, as all hon. Members would wish to work with him, but he is wrong to say that we are not taking action. In fact, we are taking very strong action indeed.

Patrick Cormack: Did the Secretary of State see the moving article written by our colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), in last Saturday's Telegraph, in which he underlined how crucial it is that certain children should never be put into mainstream schools? If he did not read that article, will he please do so? When he has done so, will he write to me?

Charles Clarke: As it happens, I did read that article and I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, but the problem with the debate about inclusion is that there are dogmatists on all sides. Some people say that there must never be inclusion, others that there must always be inclusion. What is necessary is to create a system with the capacity that we have built up to enable the right choices to be made for each child's individual circumstances. It is difficult to get to that point because there are significant resource implications in the education of children with special educational needs. I certainly do not hide, as I did not from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) a few moments ago, the fact that we still have a great deal of work to do in some areas, but the core principle must be that we have a system to do what is right for individual children. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on the particular point.

Mark Hoban: Has the Secretary of State read the report produced yesterday by the Down's Syndrome Association, in which parents express the concerns that many involved in special educational needs have expressed? One parent said:
	"Our local authority is bent on achieving inclusion and the reduction of special schools."
	Another parent said:
	"The important factor is choice . . . a mainstream only route is a dangerous one size fits all approach."
	Is it not time to put a moratorium on the closure of special schools to maintain parental choice and ensure that those centres of excellence serve not just today's children, but tomorrow's too?

Charles Clarke: Unfortunately, I have not read that article. About the same number of children are being educated in special schools now as they were 10 years ago. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, however. I have met groups of parents who feared the closure of a school in their local authority and I know that they felt unengaged and thought the decision was wrong for their children. That is why I gave the answer that I did to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). This must not be a dogmatic process. There has to be proper consultation with the community, in particular with the parents and carers of those children. The needs of the individual child have to come first.
	I maintain the general view that it is best to find a system for the education of children with special educational needs that bears some relationship to the general system, rather than putting them in ghettos of any particular form. It is a difficult management question and, in some cases, a difficult political question. It is difficult to get it right, but I believe that that is the correct direction to take.

School Meals

David Kidney: What action his Department takes to enforce its minimum nutritional standards for school meals.

Stephen Twigg: Local education authorities have a duty to provide school meals that meet statutory nutritional standards. Where a school has a delegated budget for meals, this duty becomes the responsibility of the governing body.
	The Department for Education and Skills and the Food Standards Agency are jointly funding an evaluation of nutritional standards in 80 secondary schools. That will be published later this year and we will consider the findings carefully, together with the Select Committee report on obesity published today.

David Kidney: Is my hon. Friend aware of my ten-minute Bill next month on food in schools? Does he agree that today's report by the Health Committee gives much added significance to the subject? Does he accept, on behalf of his Department, the central theme of that Bill—that every school should have a food policy, dealing with school meals and the contents of the children's lunch boxes and the vending machines—and that Ofsted should enforce those policies by inspecting and disseminating good practice, so that we embed good attitudes towards food throughout society?

Patrick Cormack: Goodbye Mr. Chips.

Stephen Twigg: I welcome my hon. Friend's ten-minute Bill, which I was aware of. We are in discussions with Ofsted on the role that it can play, both with regard to the nutritional value of food in schools and, more generally, in addressing the need for healthy schools. I accept that today's report makes an important contribution to cross-Government work in tackling that significant problem.

Nigel Evans: Prohibiting chips in schools will encourage youngsters to go out and get them from other sources. Today's newspapers say that some schools are being forced to provide meals for 35p a head. That encourages the chip culture rather than moving us away from it. Should we not ensure that the resources are right for the provision of school meals so that youngsters have a choice? We also need to educate youngsters so that they value what they eat. Clearly, the implication is not simply that we are becoming a nation of Mr. Blobbies, but that later in life those children could get diseases, such as diabetes, which is on the increase, unless they eat properly.

Stephen Twigg: I agree, although the expression "Goodbye Mr. Chips" came from a Conservative Back Bencher rather than anyone on the Labour Benches.
	We must provide a balance and choice in what is available in schools. There are good examples of schools that provide a good, healthy range, even with limited resources. We are working with the Food Standards Agency to evaluate those 80 schools. The report will be published within the next two months, when we will consider how to take it forward. I especially agree with the hon. Gentleman that the school curriculum is just as important as the meals that the school provides. We want to take that forward as well.

Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend remember that, three years ago, the Education Committee published a report—the first under my chairmanship—on school meals? Ministers, like my hon. Friend, made nice-sounding statements in the Question Time that followed the report's publication, but very little was done. Is the excellent report by the Health Committee a wake-up call? The relationship between education and health is vital. It is not just about what kids eat at lunchtime but about where education sits in terms of teaching kids about the relationship between what they eat, how they exercise—hopefully, by walking to school—and their future prosperity.

Stephen Twigg: Absolutely. I assure my hon. Friend that I never forget any of his Committee's reports, and I am sure that none of my colleagues in the ministerial team would do so, even those that were published before we joined the Department.
	My hon. Friend is right. The report is a wake-up call across Government. An important part of it deals with physical education and sport. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we are investing significant amounts to achieve the target of a minimum of two hours physical education and sport in our schools.
	It is an indictment that we have not got to that point, but we are progressing.
	We also need to ensure that the message about healthy food and healthy living spreads throughout the school ethos and the curriculum. That is why, as the Secretary of State said late last year, we will be publishing a healthy eating blueprint later this year.

Tim Collins: Does the Minister agree that providing healthy, nutritional food options is only part of the pattern, and that schoolchildren at the moment are receiving many mixed signals? Will he review the extent to which some of the companies responsible for the least healthy food options are able to sponsor school activities and put in place vending machines that encourage children to go for the worst food options, not the best?

Stephen Twigg: That is one issue that we are considering as part of the "food in schools" work with the Department of Health. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we do not want sponsorship that encourages unhealthy activity, but we want to take a sensible approach to sponsorship; for example, we want to encourage the provision of drinking water in schools, and the water companies are among the sponsors of many of those initiatives. We seek to get the balance right.

Vera Baird: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is critical that nutritious meals reach the poorest children, and that it continues to be a terrible pity that about 200,000 children entitled to free school meals do not claim them? According to research by the Child Poverty Action Group that is, as ever, due to the fear of stigma. Does he have any new plans to deal with that old and seemingly intractable problem?

Stephen Twigg: I am aware of that problem and I have been in discussion with CPAG about the work needed to ensure that free schools meals are taken up. I cannot set out a specific plan of action today, but I assure my hon. and learned Friend that, in considering her point, I will look at whether further work can be done on this specific issue as part of the broader work on healthy eating that I mentioned before.

Teacher Training

Helen Jones: What assessment he has made of the additional teacher training requirements which would result from the implementation of the Tomlinson report.

Alan Johnson: The final report of the working group on 14 to 19 reform, expected in the autumn, will set out recommendations for the curriculum and qualifications for that phase of learning. The report will set out carefully phased implementation arrangements. When the Department considers the final report it will work closely with the Teacher Training Agency and other bodies on the implications of the proposals for teacher training.

Helen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all the indications are that there will be many more practical options in schools when Tomlinson is implemented, so many of our young people will be learning basic subjects such as maths and science through practical rather than theoretical work? That will necessitate major changes in the way we train our teachers, because they are not currently trained in that way. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to give serious consideration not only to future teacher training but to the in-service training that will be required, so that we can make sure that the proposals are properly implemented?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I can assure her that the issue is a priority. A departmental group has been set up to look specifically at issues arising from the implementation of the working group's proposals and the need for more practical training. This is not new: although work arising from the Tomlinson report is at a very early stage, a great deal of work is being done now in workplaces and further education colleges to ensure that teachers are properly trained.

Vincent Cable: If the Government are to progress the integrated 14 to 19 agenda, will that primarily be done by adding sixth forms to schools that do not have them, or by strengthening the age range of post-16 colleges; if the latter, what steps are the Government taking to remove the discrimination against post-16 colleges in determining staff salaries and funding?

Alan Johnson: We need to look at both options. Central Government have not set out in tablets of stone whether sixth forms in schools, sixth form colleges or, indeed, sixth form centres in FE colleges are the best route forward. In the strategic area reviews currently under way in all 47 learning and skills council areas we are asking providers to put the learner at the centre and decide on post-16 provision accordingly. Funding has been an issue for some time, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the latest pay deal agreed for FE colleges will, by the end of its two-year duration, narrow that gap considerably, although it will not close it.

Tony McWalter: Further to the excellent supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) about the centrality of science and maths in the Tomlinson review, can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that the Smith report on mathematics teaching is being implemented post-haste to address the concerns rightly expressed by my hon. Friend?

Alan Johnson: I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the Smith report on mathematics is being looked at energetically—[Laughter.] You can look at something energetically, Mr. Speaker, whether or not you do anything about it. The Smith report, however, makes an important contribution to the debate, and we will publish our response in the near future.

School Support Staff

Brian Iddon: What his latest estimate is of the number of support staff working in schools; and if he will make a statement.

David Miliband: In January 2004, there were 241,700 full-time equivalent support staff employed in maintained schools in England—an increase of over 100,000 since 1997. Further information is available in the House of Commons Library. In addition, teacher numbers rose by 4,000 over the past year, and there has been an increase of 28,000 since 1997. That is obviously excellent news for schools and school standards.

Brian Iddon: The Save British Science Society has found that practical classes in science are often cancelled for a variety of reasons, including poor pupil behaviour. Will my hon. Friend look at the supply of laboratory technicians? They are not well paid, and there are few training courses available for them, yet they are essential to the setting-up and efficient and safe running of practical classes in science.

David Miliband: I completely agree. When I appeared before the Science and Technology Committee a year or so ago, we spoke about this issue, and I explained that work force reform and the inclusion of a range of adults with expertise from the community could play a major role in schools. I certainly envisage a continuing increase in school support staff, including those vital laboratory technicians to whom my hon. Friend referred.

John Gummer: Will the Minister explain to the House what plans he has to raise the status and acceptance of support staff, who are important to the proper running of our schools? They play an increasingly important role, and should be seen for what they are—an essential part of education, not an add-on extra.

David Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I hope that he agrees that it is less a matter of acceptance—there is widespread acceptance of the important role that laboratory technicians can play—than of status, which is important. The work force reform agreement, which establishes clear teaching support roles for support staff, will provide them with the status that is demanded. Allied to that is a career structure for laboratory technicians that has not previously existed and a training system to support them. All those things will help to turn the acceptance that he and I think is important into the status that we also agree is vital. The first question today, which was answered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, about the role of volunteer graduate students and others in the classroom, demonstrated an important adjunct to the role of laboratory technicians, drawn from universities and elsewhere.

Gap Year

Valerie Davey: What assessment he has made of the merits of a gap year to young people's education.

Alan Johnson: The Department for Education and Skills has commissioned a review of gap years, and the results of that research are due to be published at the end of July.

Valerie Davey: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I am sure that he is aware that the Government are considering whether to support young people from low-income families to ensure that they, too, have the opportunity to take a gap year. Will he ensure that the Department's report feeds into that, and that admissions tutors in further and higher education and people who employ young people in their gap year are made aware of the value of a gap year for young people?

Alan Johnson: I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that the results of the research that we have commissioned and of the young volunteer challenge pilot which she mentioned and which operates in nine educational maintenance allowance areas, will be co-ordinated and, indeed, fed into the work of the Russell commission, which was announced by the Chancellor and the Home Secretary on 17 May, giving us a comprehensive look at a range of issues. We already recognise the value of gap years, but we need to know more about what students do in their gap year, what they get out of it, and other matters that have been under-researched in the past.

David Rendel: Given that asking round the first year sixth-form students in my constituency this year has shown that many of them have been significantly put off the chance of going on a gap year because of the coming change in top-up fees, what investigations have the Government made to see what effect top-up fees will have on those who are deciding whether or not to take a gap year?

Alan Johnson: I am not surprised that some sixth-formers have been frightened to death by some of the figures floating around—

Nigel Evans: They are realistic.

Alan Johnson: They are not realistic at all. The suggestion the other day that students will end up with debts of £40,000 is incredible and wholly unhelpful. In reality the gap year issue is different now from in 1998–99, when fees were introduced. Then students who were applying for university did not know that there would be a fee to pay; now there is three years' notice. Given that the current situation is payment up front—not on graduation—no maintenance grant, no 25-year debt forgiveness and a smaller loan, it is questionable whether students would decide to take a gap year, especially as in 2006 they will get the benefit of all those proposals. We do not intend to legislate in respect of the situation. Universities have the power to deal with any problems that they foresee.

Chris Grayling: This is yet another example of the Government saying one thing and doing another. Clearly the Minister has not talked to sixth-formers recently. If he does a straw poll of them, he will find that many of those leaving in 2005 are saying that they will not take a gap year to avoid top-up fees. Does the Minister accept that that will cause chaos in the universities admissions system in 2005 and represents a genuine injustice to many young people who for financial reasons will not take a gap year and will lose out on the kind of opportunity about which the Chancellor has been waxing lyrical this week?

Alan Johnson: I talk to sixth-formers all the time. These proposals are still subject to parliamentary approval; the Bill is still going through the House. If, in the expectation of the happy day coming, the Bill receives Royal Assent, we can do an effective job of explaining the deal to students and their parents, many of whom believe that they will pay £3,000 up front, there is no maintenance grant and there is not an increase in the threshold for repayment. I have not come across a single student whose decision to go to university has been affected. I agree that there is an issue about whether to take a gap year, but once the situation is fully explained, there will not be a gap year problem. Certainly if it is foreseen, universities, who will have the opportunity under variable fees to set a lower fee to avoid a gap year problem, have that solution in their own hands, rather than us legislating, as the hon. Gentleman proposes, to remove that money from the universities and prevent them from having that choice. We have taken a balanced approach to a currently perceived problem.

David Chaytor: Is not the missing ingredient in this debate the role of the parents? Is it not unquestionably in the interests of the majority of parents to encourage their young people to take a gap year, thereby making themselves £1,175 a year better off? Once parents start to understand that by deferring entry to 2006 they will have an enormous tax cut, attitudes to gap years will change.

Alan Johnson: I am told that youngsters today do not listen to their parents. Many of us will hope that they do on this occasion. There is an awful lot in what my hon. Friend says, not just in respect of parental responsibility, but in respect of students recognising that if they enrol in 2006 they will get a bigger loan, a deferred fee, a £2,700 non-repayable grant, a bursary of up to £4,000 from the university and 25-year debt forgiveness as well as all the other proposals that we will have already introduced, such as a higher threshold. It is questionable whether there will be a gap year problem. We cannot be absolutely confident that there will not be one, but once we have got the message across in the next three years there will be a change of perception. I hope very much that we can deal with this issue.

Nursery Education

Richard Ottaway: If he will make a statement on the funding of nursery education.

Margaret Hodge: In 1997 access to free nursery education was effectively a postcode lottery. Since then we have invested more than £11 billion as part of an unprecedented expansion of early years provision. From 1 April 2004, six months ahead of the original target, we amended the regulatory framework to require all local authorities to ensure that there is sufficient provision to deliver a free part-time nursery education place for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want one.

Richard Ottaway: May I suggest that the Minister visit Croydon, where that is not the case? Is she aware of the shambles in the funding of nursery education in Croydon, where the Labour-controlled council has embarked upon a discriminatory and illegal policy to deal with it? Is she aware that owing to a lack of funding, the council is not fulfilling the pledge that she set out? The council is choosing schools that are in Labour-controlled wards to receive nursery education funding, and ignoring the rest of the borough. Does she agree that that is abuse of power and contrary to the advice of officers, and will she use her statutory powers to intervene in what is nothing more than political corruption?

Margaret Hodge: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am aware of the situation in Croydon because he has written to me about it two or three times and I have responded. As he also knows from the correspondence in which he and I have been engaged, we are working closely with that authority to find a solution. It may be worth pointing out to the House that there are two authorities out of the 150 local education authorities that are having some difficulty in implementing their statutory requirements. One is Croydon; the other is Tory-controlled Richmond.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Small Businesses

Henry Bellingham: What plans she has to assist small businesses to combat fraudulent schemes targeted at small and medium-sized businesses.

Harriet Harman: There is a wide range of initiatives under way across Government to help small business combat fraud. Those include helping small businesses protect themselves against fraud and ensuring better investigation and prosecution of fraud.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for those remarks and for the effort she is putting into the dealing with the problem, but is she aware that many of the scams are becoming ever more brazen and complicated? One was reported to me the other day that was targeted at small and medium-sized enterprises and involved an organisation in Holland that purported to be an official lottery. It informed the recipient that they had won a large amount of money, asked for their bank details and asked them to send a handling fee. Some small firms have already been conned by that, believe it or not. Can the Solicitor-General tell the House what further steps she will take to try and sort out the problem?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and brings to the attention of the House the fact that huge amounts of money are involved in frauds perpetrated against small businesses. Often that has an international dimension and is highly organised and complex. He may be aware that the Federation of Small Businesses now has a column in its newsletter called "Scamwatch". Perhaps that ought to include the fraud that the hon. Gentleman described.
	It is important that we work across Government Departments and across agencies. It is an issue for the Department of Trade and Industry, the Financial Services Authority and the Office of Fair Trading, as well as for the police and prosecutors and small businesses themselves.

Peter Pike: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many small businesses have difficulty with the current legislation on money laundering? Does she agree that we should provide more guidance, so that people do not fall into traps that they are not expecting?

Harriet Harman: We are always happy to give guidance to small business, and we keep in close contact with the chambers of commerce as well as the Federation of Small Businesses. For the most part, they ask for more police resources to investigate fraud and closer working with prosecutors, but if there is a particular issue with small businesses having difficulty with the important new money-laundering regulations, we will do everything we can to help. Those regulations and the changes in the law are very important to tackle a growing problem.

David Heath: There certainly is a growing problem, not only with "phishing" for bank details, but with the west African scam, which has been mentioned, and with what I consider to be the worst of all: firms purporting to be Government Departments or agencies asking for registration fees from companies for functions that are, in fact, free of charge.
	Many of those cases are reported to local trading standards departments in the first instance, and it is difficult to assess the scale of the problem across the whole country. Can the Solicitor-General assure me that such cases are collated and that what is perhaps minor fraud in individual cases is considered as major fraud when it is replicated across the country and internationally?

Harriet Harman: Just as Ministers must work with colleagues in other Departments, so the Crown Prosecution Service must work closely with the police—on fraud, it works particularly closely with City of London police. It is also important for local police forces and local trading standards departments to work together. The line between what is a criminal offence and what is taking advantage is often blurred, and we must keep an eye on that point. I shall take up the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and examine liaison between trading standards departments and local police on that issue.

Human Traffickers

David Kidney: What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to secure the conviction of human traffickers.

Harriet Harman: The CPS works closely with the police, immigration authorities and victims' organisations to ensure that human traffickers are caught, convicted and receive the appropriate sentence.

David Kidney: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does she agree that public ill will towards those who enter our country illegally should be properly directed towards organised criminal gangs that smuggle people into the country illegally? Does she think that prosecutors could contribute to focusing public disapproval—nay, loathing—on the right people by securing convictions and the severest sentences for ruthless people smugglers?

Harriet Harman: I agree with the points raised by my hon. Friend. When the Court of Appeal heard the case of a man called Plakici, who had received an unduly lenient sentence, it said that people trafficking is modern-day slavery. People are tricked, taken across the world and forced into terrible circumstances, which often include prostitution, kidnap, rape and many kinds of assault. The problem is growing, and we must address it internationally. We cannot sort it out alone, and we must work bilaterally with the countries of origin, some of which are in Africa, eastern Europe and south-east Asia, and with our European partners, because victims are often brought into another European country before they are brought into the United Kingdom.

Dominic Grieve: The Solicitor-General knows that in many cases human trafficking is for the purpose of prostitution, which is a point that we sought specifically to address in sections 57, 58 and 59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Will she tell the House about progress on prosecutions under that legislation? Perhaps she will also amplify her remarks on international co-operation: are we succeeding in extraditing to this country for trial those who facilitate trafficking, because in many cases the traffickers are not based here?

Harriet Harman: On international co-operation, the offences often occur in a number of different countries, and victims and evidence are often located in several different countries. That often raises the question of the most appropriate jurisdiction under which to try the crime, and extradition is not a major issue. The hon. Gentleman is right that the 2003 Act adds more offences to tackle that growing menace. The 2003 Act came into effect on 1 May, and I do not know whether any prosecutions have occurred under it yet, but an interministerial group will monitor the situation. The hon. Gentleman, like me, was in the Committee that considered the 2003 Act, and none of us wants good legislation that is not enforced.

Burglary (North Yorkshire)

Anne McIntosh: To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the rate of successful prosecution for burglary in north Yorkshire.

Harriet Harman: The conviction rate for all cases in North Yorkshire magistrates court is 98 per cent., and for all cases in the Crown Court the figure is 90 per cent. We do not have separate figures for conviction rates for burglaries in north Yorkshire.

Anne McIntosh: I have the separate figures, which show that less than 5 per cent. of burglary cases lead to successful prosecutions. In 2002–03, more than 11,000 burglaries were recorded, but fewer than 700 offenders were brought to justice, which is defined as a successful prosecution. The figure is very low, and I wonder what is going wrong and what damage is being caused to the morale of North Yorkshire police, which brings cases to trial, where the offenders are not successfully prosecuted.

Harriet Harman: In north Yorkshire, the police, prosecutors, courts and other agencies are working together to try to reduce the gap between the number of offences committed and the number of offenders brought to justice. That is happening locally as well as throughout north Yorkshire in general. As the hon. Lady will be aware, there has been a fall in the number of burglaries. The latest information shows that the number of domestic burglaries in north Yorkshire has fallen and that there has been an increase in the number of arrests. It is preferable that burglaries should be deterred, but if they happen, we must ensure that they are detected—that is a major issue—and that people are effectively prosecuted when brought to court. The police and the CPS are working together on that and making some progress.

Government Counsel

Gordon Prentice: What criteria she uses to select counsel to represent the Government in court.

Harriet Harman: The selection criteria for counsel to represent the Government include experience in advocacy and advice, quality of written work, academic strength and references.

Gordon Prentice: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer, but is there any kind of performance monitoring of Treasury counsel—not only for those who represent the Government in court, but for those who represent them in inquiries? For example, was Jonathan Sumption, who represented the Government during the Hutton inquiry, told whether he did a good or bad job? What kind of feedback did he get?

Harriet Harman: I cannot comment on that specific case, but continuous monitoring and feedback happens for important cases. The panel is reviewed, so that people do not stay on it for life. People's performance is reviewed to determine whether they will stay on the panel of counsel to be instructed by the Government.

Business of the House

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for the week after the recess?

Peter Hain: The business for the week after the Whitsun recess will be as follows:
	Monday 7 June—Second Reading of the Patents Bill [Lords], followed by a motion to approve the Third Report of the Procedure Committee on joint activities with the National Assembly for Wales, followed by a motion to amend the Standing Orders in relation to the nomination of Select Committees.
	Tuesday 8 June—Remaining stages of the Age Related Payments Bill, followed by a debate on the "Future of Air Transport" White Paper on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Wednesday 9 June—A debate on veterans' affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Thursday 10 June—A debate on disability on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 11 June—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 14 June—Second Reading of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 15 June—Opposition half-day [10th Allotted Day] (Part Two). There will be half-day debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by a motion to approve European documents relating to the financial perspective and to the structural and cohesion funds.
	Wednesday 16 June—A debate on European affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Thursday 17 June—Remaining stages of the Human Tissue Bill.
	Friday 18 June—Private Members' Bills.
	Mr. Speaker, I wish you and all members of staff of the House, on whom we so gratefully rely, a happy break.

Oliver Heald: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, may I say to the House that questions must be put about the business after next week? I shall be very strict on that and will not allow questions on any matter other than that. I remind hon. Members that there will be an Adjournment debate later during which matters may be raised of any Back Benchers' choosing.

Oliver Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business. May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with his remarks about the staff of the House and his best wishes to you, Mr. Speaker?
	Can the Leader of the House give us any indication of when the debates promised by the Foreign Secretary on Zimbabwe and Iraq will take place?
	The Leader of the House will have seen reports of the ruling in the Belfast Crown court that the Real IRA is not a proscribed group under the Terrorism Act 2000; that means that it is not an offence to be a member of that organisation. Is not that a blunder by the Lord Chancellor, who gave clear assurances to the contrary? When the Terrorism Bill was in Committee, he said:
	"the organisation must be a proscribed organisation under Schedule 2 to the Bill. Under Schedule 2, the Irish Republican Army will include the Provisional IRA, the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 June 2000; Vol. 613, c. 1064.]
	We want that matter rectified rapidly. Will the Leader of the House promise us an early Bill? I assure him that he will have our full support.
	As the business in the week after we come back is somewhat slight, can the Leader of the House fit in a short debate entitled, "The mystery of the missing men from the Ministry"? Figures published this week show an annual rise of 88,000 in public sector employment in education, yet the Department for Education and Skills website claims that the number of teachers has risen by only 4,000. Who are the other 84,000? Can we have an assurance that they are not yet more bureaucrats?
	Turning to the D-day commemorations, the Leader of the House will know that there is to be a written statement today and that many veterans are concerned about the arrangements for them to attend the march-past. Apparently, there are considerable transport difficulties. Does he agree that had there been such difficulties 60 years ago, we would never have won the war? What is he going to do about it and can we have an oral statement?
	The Leader of the House knows that, by and large, we prefer oral statements to written statements, but could not the titles of written statements be more informative? I notice today, for example, that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is going to tell us all about "Dealing with the past." It would be much more helpful if he could tell us exactly what his statement was about.

Peter Hain: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says about statement titles, as will, I am sure, all my colleagues in the Cabinet and in the Government.
	On Zimbabwe, I can promise the hon. Gentleman that a debate will be notified as soon as we have had discussions through the usual channels, including on the availability of the Foreign Secretary. We intend to have a debate on Iraq when the opportunity is right to do so. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Defence Secretary is to make a statement to the House this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman asked for that last week, and it is being served up for the House. I am sure that he will welcome that.

Oliver Heald: We want more.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is always asking for more—that is his job. [Hon. Members: "Oliver!"] I will not pursue that line.
	The Government are very concerned about the ruling on the Real IRA. The Director of Public Prosecutions is forwarding a report to the Attorney-General with a view to a reference to the Court of Appeal. The Government are clear that the Real IRA should be a proscribed organisation. Given the ongoing consideration of a reference to the Court of Appeal, I cannot comment any further.
	On public sector jobs, I shall give the hon. Gentleman some of the details for which he asked. In doing so, I note that a Conservative Government, were one ever to be elected, would be committed to cutting public sector jobs on a massive scale. Since June 2003, 162,000 new jobs have been created and recruited in the public sector. At the same time, by the way, 98,000 new private sector jobs have been created. Those public sector jobs include nearly 19,000 nurses, 5,600 doctors, 4,800 police, 4,200 teachers, 16,000 clinical support staff and 16,300 school support staff, as well as many others. The truth is that we want high-quality services and the recruitment of front-line staff to provide those services. That is what the public want and that is what we are delivering. The Conservatives would cut those jobs and services week after week, as they did when they were in power.
	We are all concerned to ensure that the D-day Normandy landings are properly commemorated. That is why the Ministry of Defence is providing assistance for veterans to travel to Normandy to make the events on the weekend of 5 and 6 June a success. The main commemoration will take place with the Queen and the Prime Minister present on 6 June. That is important and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.

Julie Morgan: My right hon. Friend knows that the today's Health Committee highlights obesity. He also knows that sport and recreation are important in tackling that problem. Is he aware of the possible loss of sailing facilities in Cardiff as a result of the proposal by Western Power to fill in part of the Llanishen reservoir? Will he do all that he can to influence the course of events to prevent that from happening? It would block off an important sailing resource in Cardiff.

Peter Hain: That is obviously a matter of great concern to my hon. Friend. I shall look into it and discuss it with the relevant authorities.

Paul Tyler: We welcome the two statements this afternoon, especially that on chaos in the European elections in the north. If any vital deadlines are missed next week and there could consequently be a legal challenge to the outcome of the elections, will the Leader of the House assure us that we will have a statement on the first day back—Monday 7 June—to explain what the Government intend to do, and that it will take precedence over all other statements? It is obviously an important issue.
	On security in the House, can we have a progress report in the week that we come back—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat that the Speaker is responsible for security and I do not want it discussed on the Floor of the House. If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member has worries about security, they can come and see me and I will discuss it with them. The worst thing we can do is to discuss security on the Floor of the House.

Paul Tyler: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously I understand that. I intended to take up some of the points that were made in business questions last week, but I can leave that for another occasion.
	Why has only one day been allocated to the remaining stages of the Human Tissue Bill? Will the Leader of the House reconsider that? Hon. Members from all parties believe that important issues are at stake. Will he at least review the matter to ascertain whether more time could be allocated?

Peter Hain: I welcome your comments on security, Mr. Speaker.
	As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, he will shortly have an opportunity to question the Minister on postal votes. However, I reject the charge of chaos anywhere in the postal vote regions. I note that the Liberal Democrats were prominent in leading a charge to deny many millions of people the opportunity to vote from the comfort of their homes, with the higher turnout and improved quality of democracy that that would bring.
	I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point on the Human Tissue Bill. My inclination at the moment is not to change the timing, but I shall consider his comments.

Alan Hurst: In my constituency is a greatly loved maternity hospital, the William Julian Courtauld, which has served the people of Braintree for some 80 years. Up to seven years ago, 350 births a year happened there. That figure fell to approximately 120 last year. The hospital is open 9 am to 5 pm on weekdays only. In the evenings and at weekends, the midwife has to get the key to let the expectant mother in. That is causing a vast deterioration in service. Will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate on the provision of adequate maternity services in small towns and rural areas?

Peter Hain: The Secretary of State for Health will take careful note of my hon. Friend's comments because he raises an important issue. The problem is difficult to understand given that more than 67,000 extra nurses, more than 19,000 extra doctors and more than 7,300 additional consultants have been recruited since we came to power. That should mean extra, higher quality services throughout the country, including in my hon. Friend's constituency.

John Bercow: May we have an urgent debate in Government time on Afghanistan? Given that, following the removal of the Taliban, the Prime Minister promised that the international community would not walk away from the plight of the Afghan people, does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that internecine fighting in that country is rife, that development aid has in many cases had to be diverted to military projects and emergency relief, that opium production is soaring and that the independent newspaper there describes Afghanistan as a nation on the edge of anarchy? In those circumstances, is it not essential that the House should have a thorough debate, agree a way forward and honour its commitment to the long-suffering people of that beautiful but beleaguered country?

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there will shortly be an opportunity to discuss Afghanistan. Obviously, I welcome his concern about the situation there, but he will also have noted President Karzai's statement rejecting many of the points contained in that report. It is also important to note that the economy of Afghanistan grew by 30 per cent. last year. Furthermore, 860 km of road have been rebuilt, 4 million children are now back at school, and 6 million children have been vaccinated against measles and polio. Progress is being made in a very difficult security climate, with the Taliban seeking to come back, assisted by Osama bin Laden's forces.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Mr. Speaker, I am mindful of your comments about raising security on the Floor of the House, but I hope that you will understand my sentiment and purpose when I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when we return from the recess, we can have a debate on the role of the Doorkeepers. They play a vital role here in security and it was they who were instrumental in arresting the two purple flour-bomb throwers the other week. I would much appreciate a debate on this issue.

Peter Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the vital role of the Doorkeepers, which we all appreciate enormously. Some of the gratuitous comments that have appeared in the newspapers in recent days have been bitterly resented by you, Mr. Speaker, by me and all Members of the House who really appreciate the job that the Doorkeepers do. We must also recognise that, when journalists make these accusations, the Doorkeepers cannot answer back in the way that politicians can.

Pete Wishart: Can we have an urgent statement on the arrest of my constituent, the journalist Peter Hounam, in Israel last night? The Leader of the House will be aware that Mr. Hounam was the journalist who interviewed Mordecai Vanunu about Israel's secret nuclear programme in 1986. He is currently being held in Israel without legal representation or access to British consular staff. Will the Leader of the House do all that he can to ensure his early release?

Peter Hain: The Government are very concerned about this situation and it is absolutely appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to raise it. We have asked the Israeli police and the ministry for foreign affairs there for more information, and expressed our concern. We have also asked for consular access to Peter Hounam as soon as possible. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured to know that I have asked my colleague, the Minister of State in the Foreign Office, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, to make contact with the Israeli ambassador to get the issue resolved.

Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that response, may I ask whether we could have a statement, when the House returns after the recess, from the appropriate Foreign Office Minister on the treatment of Peter Hounam, the circumstances in which he was arrested and the representations that have been made by the UK Government to Israel to lift the ludicrous restrictions on Mordecai Vanunu, who has already served 18 years in prison and is now under virtual house arrest in the Anglican cathedral in Jerusalem? We pay tribute to the cathedral for being prepared to help and support him, but he should be a free man, free to travel wherever he wishes, anywhere in the world, and not under house arrest.

Peter Hain: As someone who had many friends placed under house arrest in the old apartheid South Africa, I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. The treatment of Mr. Vanunu is unacceptable and we have made representations about it throughout his detention, and subsequently.

Philip Hammond: In October, 14 million people in the three northern regions will be asked to vote in a referendum on elected regional assemblies. The Government have already recognised that it is essential that those people understand precisely what the powers of those assemblies will be, but the Deputy Prime Minister has already created some doubt about those powers by speculating that they might be extended. It is important that a draft Bill be published, but that will not be enough. It is essential that we debate this matter in the House, preferably before the summer recess, but certainly before the referendums take place, so that we can probe the Government on their precise intentions. Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance on that?

Peter Hain: The assurance that I can give to the hon. Gentleman is that the Bill will be published before the referendums take place. That is important so that people know what they are voting on. Equally, it is important to note that the House should welcome the attempt by the Government to hand power back to the people and empower regions of England, just as Wales and Scotland have been empowered, through devolution of decision making. The Government are committed to that policy, which we will continue to roll out.

Geraldine Smith: The Government office for the north-west has recently appraised 20 bids for objective 2 sub-regional funding, and has given top rating to a £3 million bid for circus skills training, while a bid by Lancashire constabulary affecting my constituency, which related to social exclusion, crime prevention, economic and environmental concerns, was rated bottom. I find that completely incomprehensible and I suspect that most ordinary people will also find it so. Can we therefore have an early debate on the decision-making procedures and criteria associated with such bids?

Peter Hain: On the basis of my hon. Friend's account, I agree that it is baffling.

John Gummer: Does the Leader of the House agree that it is important to have the debate on the European Union? I welcome such a debate. Currently, two areas are under consultation: both the cross-compliance arrangements and the excellent arrangements for the EU water directive. Everyone else will have an opportunity to put their views. Is it not time that the House had an opportunity to discuss the EU water directive and cross-compliance, because every farmer in the country will be affected? We ought to have a full day's debate in Government time on those matters.

Peter Hain: I will certainly take account of what the right hon. Gentleman says, particularly given his long involvement and expertise in this area, both in government and subsequently. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to note carefully his points and take them into account.

Louise Ellman: Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House after the recess on the position in the Sussex police authority? Five police officers involved directly in the unlawful killing of my constituent, James Ashley, in January 1998, are apparently now to sue the Sussex police authority for £50,000 each for their treatment. The Ashleys have lost a son. A year ago, the new chief constable of Sussex made an apology to the family saying that James's wrongful death came about because of the cumulative effect of policy errors and operational mistakes. Does my right hon. Friend accept that this situation is deeply distressing to my constituents, the Ashleys, and will he ensure that the Home Secretary investigates the matter and makes a statement to Members on it?

Peter Hain: It is indeed a distressing and tragic incident and our sympathies go to the family. They will undoubtedly be pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the matter on the Floor of the House so that the whole House is aware of it. The Home Secretary will of course want to take careful note of what she has said and to progress the matter.

Julian Lewis: It is now more than four months since I raised on a point of order the question of the volume of noise from the permanent demonstration in Parliament square. In response, Mr. Speaker, you expressed sympathy with my point and the Leader of the House said that he would try to deal with the matter as quickly as possible. In fact, the volume of noise continues unabated. It is not relevant that there was a court case that allowed the protest to continue—that was not related to the volume of noise—and we must consider that the police, who have the duty of being in the front line of any sort of attack that might be made on the House from outside, are being constantly distracted and disturbed by this incessant noise. The police say that it is a matter for the council, and the council says that it is a matter for the police. Why cannot the police cross the road and remove the amplification equipment once and for all?

Peter Hain: Mr. Speaker, I know that you feel equally strongly about this matter because you have told me so in no uncertain terms. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are anxious to deal with the situation, which is why we responded as we did recently to the Procedure Committee report. Action will follow, after consultation with the Home Secretary and the police, to sort the situation out.

Brian White: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1295, which highlights the situation of a company in my constituency that has had to lay off workers because of the actions of a large company nearby, Hyundai, that refuses to pay outstanding debts?
	[That this House notes that small businesses, such as Motor Sports Developments Ltd based in Milton Keynes, have for many years meant that the UK has led the world in designing, developing, preparing, operating and promoting motor sports vehicles for international motor sport, notably the World Rally Championship; further notes that these companies enter into long-term contracts to develop the skills and experience to operate a world rally programme on behalf of a major car manufacturer; is therefore outraged that due to a unilateral decision made by the Hyundai Motor Company in Korea to use its economic power and not to make outstanding payments due to Motor Sports Developments Ltd, the company faces possible closure with the loss of 150 highly skilled employees; condemns Hyundai for acting in bad faith; believes that such a company is not fit to sponsor Euro 2004; and calls on the Government to ensure that where UK small businesses find themselves in this position, they are supported in their legal action against large foreign multi-nationals.]
	In thanking the staff at our embassy in Seoul for their efforts, may I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that, across Departments, the Government respond to give small businesses in this situation all the help that they can get?

Peter Hain: I am sure that my right hon. Friends will want to do that and I am concerned to hear about the plight of Motor Sports Developments Ltd., not least because I am a motor sports fan. I know that it is a company involved in high-performance engineering, in which Britain has a world lead, and we want to make sure that such businesses are safeguarded and able to compete effectively in future.

Martin Smyth: May I press the Leader of the House on the question of doubt about the legal situation of the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA? The learned judge who made the decision is very able. If that is not cleared up before Parliament resumes in a week's time, will he assure me that legislation will be introduced in the House to tighten the net rather than leaving the ambiguity that seems to favour the IRA who, under whatever guise, continue to terrorise?

Peter Hain: Obviously, we need to take one thing at a time. The first is to have the Attorney-General's view on how matters should proceed: whether there should be a reference to the Court of Appeal or some other method of redressing the situation. I, the Government and the Secretary of State fully agree that it is completely unacceptable.

Dave Watts: In the past, my right hon. Friend has promised the House that he would allow Members to discuss the new hours and to review them? Can he set out a timetable for that review?

Peter Hain: The Modernisation Committee will consider this matter shortly, and I hope that it will begin its review later next month. My hon. Friend will have the opportunity to contribute to it, as will all other Members of the House. We will take into account the welcome review by the Procedure Committee, which sent out a questionnaire to all Members and attracted a high return.

Tony Baldry: In the week after the House returns, can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for International Development on the role of the Department for International Development in Iraq? We have had numerous welcome statements from the Secretary of State for Defence, but so far we have not had a single statement from the Secretary of State for International Development. Given that DFID had its budget sliced elsewhere by £100 million to go to Iraq, there has never been an explanation of where that money has gone. With the handover of authority to Iraqis, we hope that we will be in a process of nation building. One would have expected DFID to be at the forefront of all that. It would be helpful to have a better understanding of what DFID's role will be, rather than simply hearing constantly from the Secretary of State for Defence.

Peter Hain: On that question, the hon. Gentleman will understand that there have been some adjustments to the DFID budget, and properly so, as the situation in Iraq has required that, and the Iraqi people have needed the assistance that we have secured for them. He will also know that the DFID budget has doubled under this Government, which I am sure that he will welcome, compared with the position under the previous Government whom he supported. Certainly, I will draw the Secretary of State's attention to his points.

Richard Burden: May I add my support to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) regarding Mordecai Vanunu and Peter Hounam? As for my business question, can he raise through the appropriate channels, perhaps with a view to a statement after the break, the convention whereby Members are meant to inform each other when they go to each other's constituencies? I ask that because, on Monday, my office received rumours that the Leader of the Opposition was going to visit my constituency the following day. We made inquiries about that, and were told by his office that it knew of no such visit, and that he was going to Birmingham for the motor show.
	When I arrived here on Monday evening, I discovered that a note had been placed on the letter board informing me that he was indeed visiting my constituency the following day. I subsequently discovered that it was for a photo call connected with a threatened post office in the constituency.
	As my right hon. Friend knows, I have been involved in a cross-party campaign to defend local services. We would be happy to have the Leader of the Opposition on board for that. Does my right hon. Friend share my fear that either the Leader of the Opposition's office does not know what he is doing, or this was an attempt to make party political advantage out of a local issue?

Peter Hain: Obviously I cannot comment on the details. There is a convention which we are all required to respect; but I should be astonished if my hon. Friend's constituents felt any relief as a result of a visit from the Leader of the Opposition, given his dreadful record of cuts across the board when his party was in government.

Iraq: UK Forces Adjustments

Geoff Hoon: I should like to make a statement on troop levels in Iraq. Overall I am announcing a net increase of around 370 in troop numbers to bring the total of UK forces in Iraq to about 8,900. As the House knows, we keep the number and composition of UK forces in Multinational Division (South East) under constant review. Since MND (SE) was established in the summer of 2003, we have made a series of adjustments in the light of the security situation on the ground and the advice of the General Officer Commanding. The most significant have included the multinationalisation of the headquarters, which was originally based on a UK division; the deployment of two additional surge battalions which I announced in September; and the deployment of a replacement for those battalions, together with a small number of Royal Military Police, primarily to provide a surge capability to assist with the training and development of Iraqi security forces in MND (SE), which I announced to the House on 28 October and 15 December.
	As a result of the latest advice from the General Officer Commanding, we plan a number of further such adjustments in MND (SE). The two surge battalions—currently 1st Battalion the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and 1st Battalion the Royal Highland Fusiliers—have made excellent progress in their work with local Iraqi forces, which are increasingly taking on responsibility for basic security functions in MND (SE). We therefore judge it unlikely that we shall need two battalions to perform that role beyond this summer, but that too we will keep under review. As a sensible precaution, we are reducing the notice to move of 40 Commando the Royal Marines in order to keep open the option of deploying it to continue this work when the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and Royal Highland Fusiliers reach the end of their tours. In the meantime, 40 Commando will continue with its current activities.
	In January 2004, we deployed two additional platoons of Royal Military Police from 110 Provost Company to assist in the provision of specialised training for the Iraqi police service. They will reach the end of their tour in June, having performed an invaluable role. We judge that the work should continue, and therefore plan to deploy two platoons of the RMP from 160 Provost Company to replace those returning next month.
	The House will be aware that the security situation in Iraq remains difficult, even in parts of MND (SE), which overall continues to be one of the more stable areas of Iraq. In particular, there is a continuing threat from violent groups in the area around al-Amarah in the province of Maysan. Although UK forces and Iraqi security forces have taken, and continue to take, robust and appropriate action to deal with this threat, the General Officer Commanding, Major-General Stewart, judges that with the planned withdrawal of 1st Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders—a light infantry battalion—at the end of its six-month tour in July, it would be advisable to take this opportunity to deploy a Warrior-trained infantry battalion. That will provide Major-General Stewart with a well-protected and mobile reserve, giving him greater operational flexibility. We therefore plan to deploy 1st Battalion the Black Watch with a small number of logistic enablers. That will involve around 600 personnel—a net increase of around 200 when the withdrawal of 1st Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders is taken into account.
	Finally, in view of the nature of the threat posed by violent groups around al-Amarah in particular, which has involved both mortar and rocket attacks on UK bases, Major-General Stewart has requested, and I have agreed, the deployment of 69 Squadron from 36 Regiment Royal Engineers—some 170 personnel—for about three months. The engineers will carry out force-protection work, including the construction of additional physical defences in British bases, to reduce the threat posed by the kinds of attacks that we have seen in recent weeks.
	I emphasise that these are sensible adjustments, at the request of the General Officer Commanding, to UK forces in MND (SE). It remains the case that we, with our coalition partners, are considering the levels and dispositions of forces required in Iraq in the months ahead, to support in particular the sovereign interim Government of Iraq through the process leading to the election of a transitional assembly and Government early in 2005. If we judge that further changes to the UK military contribution in Iraq would be appropriate to support that process, we will of course inform the House at the earliest opportunity. At present, however, no such decision has been taken.

Nicholas Soames: Conservative Members are glad that the Secretary of State has come here today—rightly, at the insistence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition—to make his long-overdue and heavily trailed statement about further deployments to Multinational Division (South East). Will he confirm that that is fully endorsed by the chiefs of staff, and is he satisfied that it fully conforms to the Government's apparently slight understanding of their own political objectives? If that is indeed the case, we believe that it is right that this should happen in order to provide additional security as a reserve, and stability as the handover approaches and throughout the period leading up to the elections—subject, of course, to the Iraqi interim Government's wishes.
	I have to say that the choice of 1st Battalion the Black Watch strikes my hon. Friends and me as astonishing. The Secretary of State may realise that the Black Watch fought throughout Telic 1, and has been back in England for less than a year. It seems an astonishing manifestation of overstretch and of the state of the Army in terms of the regiments that it can deploy that it has to deploy a regiment that has only recently returned from Iraq after a very hard time.
	On the wider but vital issue of the unity of command, given the confusion earlier in the week on the part of the Prime Minister, will the Secretary of State confirm that these troops will continue to be under British command after 30 June, within existing coalition arrangements? Will he also tell us what the relationship is likely to be between the interim Iraqi Government and any new multinational force, and will he say what the rules of immunity will mean in practice?
	In the light of his announcement, will the Secretary of State say whether troops in Iraq on existing operations will be moved from their present duties to other locations? As for practical questions of the deployment, will he confirm that the Black Watch, the Royal Military Police and the sappers will be given all the equipment they will need for operations in intense heat and a hostile environment? Will he also confirm that they will have received the full training package in every respect, including conduct on the taking and processing of prisoners? How many of the troops will be reservists? Will the Secretary of State assure us that, given the likely nature of the security challenges that the Black Watch in particular will face, the troops further deployed will have full access to all the riot control equipment that they may need? Has he assured himself on their medical back-up, and will he confirm that they are fully briefed on the welfare package?
	Will the Secretary of State assure the House that there is no intention of deploying British troops out of their existing zones of operations? Will he confirm that other discussions about further and indeed possibly strategic deployments are continuing, and will he reassure us that he will make no statement on these matters while the House is in recess? There are still many questions of profound importance with which he will need to deal over the coming weeks. We shall want his assurance that the House will be kept better informed than has previously been the case.
	The Government need to show that they have reclaimed a grip on the drift of their policy in Iraq, and prove that they are the master of their objectives and not merely the victim of events.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. He and the House can take it that the series of practical points he raised will be addressed when necessary, if they have not been addressed already.
	The Black Watch had appropriate training and was the choice for that reason, given the requirements of the General Officer Commanding.
	Indeed, as I indicated clearly to the House, that deployment is on obvious military advice. I have dealt with the immunity question already. On the question of location, I made it clear that it was a deployment to the Multinational Division (South East). The training package and the other matters that the hon. Gentleman raised have already been dealt with—[Interruption.]

Donald Anderson: This appears to be a limited, stabilising deployment at the request of the local commander. I understand that President Chirac has been positive about the new draft UN Security Council resolution. Our troops have a high regard for the professionalism of their French counterparts, with whom they work in the Balkans and elsewhere. Now that there will be—hopefully within a few weeks—a new UN Security Council resolution and a sovereign Iraqi Government on 30 June, what is the prospect of countries such as France and Spain contributing to stabilising the position and supporting the civil power?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. He invites me to speculate about a situation that has not yet been reached, but like me he is clearly optimistic that a new Security Council resolution and a sovereign Government in Iraq will encourage other countries to contribute forces. As he knows better than me, many of those countries have constitutional restrictions on the deployment of their forces in the absence of an appropriate UN resolution. That resolution should be available before 30 June. I hope that that will encourage other countries to deploy their troops.

Eric Joyce: My right hon. Friend will agree that it is entirely appropriate for the media to cover and to scrutinise the operations of our troops and their conduct on operations, but does he also agree that, when there is a cynical and destructive approach, it has a malevolent, negative effect on the morale not so much of our troops, but of service families at home? Will he urge, even though he may be banging his head against a brick wall, a bit of common sense on the part of the media?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who served with great distinction and is more aware than most of the damage that such speculation can cause. We have seen a number of suggestions that various forces will depart imminently for Iraq. It is important that there should not be such speculation, not least because of its impact on families.

Paul Keetch: I thank the Secretary of State for notice of the statement and for coming to the House before the recess.
	We have always said that if the commanders on the ground require additional troops, they should get them, but we have also said that if the United Kingdom is to take on additional commitments outside our existing area, that decision should be subject to a vote in the House of Commons. Does the fact that the deployments are at the request of the commanders on the ground and involve more armour and more barricades mean that the security situation is in effect deteriorating? Will there be an additional call-up of more TA troops to cover the deployment? In January, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that the interval for tours of duty for our troops worldwide stood at nine months. What is it now?
	Many of us both within and outside the House oppose the war in Iraq, but it was this House of Commons that authorised that deployment. Does the Secretary of State understand that, if he is to continue to receive that support, he must bring back to the House of Commons any extension of that remit?

Geoff Hoon: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition, which is not recognised in the constitutional law of the United Kingdom. It has not been the practice previously. If he thinks about what he has just said, if there were a need for British forces in southern Iraq to assist coalition forces in a different area, clearly that would be an operational decision taken on the ground. It could not await the return of some resolution to the House of Commons and a subsequent vote. What is important, and the statement provides it, is that we recognise the operational requirements on the ground in Iraq and take appropriate decisions.

Glenda Jackson: Is the interim Iraqi Government one of the coalition partners, to which the Secretary of State referred, that are considering the level and disposition of forces required in Iraq in the months ahead? When the Iraqi Government become supposedly sovereign, will they still be able to say to the British Government that they may need more troops or, indeed, fewer troops?

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry but I do not accept the way in which my hon. Friend has characterised the position. After 30 June, there will be an interim sovereign Government in Iraq. As has been made clear by Secretary Powell and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, it will be a sovereign decision as to whether foreign forces are located in Iraq. The sovereign Government will consent to their presence, as indeed independent Governments have done in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. Therefore, the arrangement will be wholly consistent as a matter of law between a sovereign Government and coalition forces—there with the consent of a sovereign Iraqi Administration.

John Maples: The Secretary of State should really treat the House with greater openness and transparency if he wants to maintain the support, particularly of my hon. Friends and me, for the Government through very difficult times—we have offered support consistently since the war started. He did not answer a single question that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) posed. Last week at Defence questions and in the Iraq debate, the Secretary of State said that there were no plans to send any further troops to Iraq. The next day, the quality broadsheets all said—they had clearly been briefed because they all had the same story—that 3,000 troops were to be sent. Now he says that 370 troops will be sent. Does he think that such media manipulation is likely to maintain the cross-party support that the Government have? I warn him that he is putting it in danger—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] I can speak for myself, and I suspect that I speak for some of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked a supplementary question. I am not having more than one supplementary.

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes that view. I could, had I been concerned with anything other than openness, have chosen to announce the deployment by way of a written ministerial statement. It would have been perfectly proper and in accordance with the principles governing such matters to do so. I chose to make the statement today precisely in the interests of the openness that the hon. Gentleman rightly described. He is a former Minister. If it were possible to manipulate the media with quite the skill he suggests, I am sure that he would have been aware of that. If the media choose to speculate, albeit wrongly, about these matters, it is not the responsibility of the Government.

Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend said, insecurity remains a major problem in Iraq. May I ask him to pay tribute to all those people, not just the military, who are helping to reconstruct that country, including the two British nationals who were killed this week? One was known to me and had a home in south Wales. He was helping in the reconstruction of Iraq's oil ministry and hoped to return quite soon. Unfortunately, both he and his colleague were killed this week. It is important to make the point that many people of all nationalities are helping in the reconstruction of the country, and they are often risking their lives to do so.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend puts the position extremely well. I join her in paying tribute to those who died and extend my condolences on behalf of the Government to their families. She is right that the key to allowing those people who are risking their lives to continue their excellent work to rebuild that country on behalf of the Iraqi people is security. That is why I have announced today a further deployment of British forces. Security is the key to all else that we need to achieve in Iraq.

Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that even those of us who are opposed to the British presence in Iraq accept that it must be right to deploy limited additional troops to provide additional security for those already there, but that we will not accept any extension or deepening of our overall role?

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I have regularly debated constitutional law in years past. I look forward to receiving from him the detailed account that he will no doubt give as to why he makes that opposition in the way he does.

Mike Gapes: Last week, I was in Basra with members of the Select Committee on Defence and met Major-General Stewart and many of our people there, including the naval forces on HMS Grafton, who are doing an important job. The Secretary of State is right that the security situation has deteriorated recently, but our forces and the civilians who are helping to supply clean water and with the reconstruction are doing a fantastic job and it would be ridiculous to follow the course suggested by those on the Opposition Benches and withdraw or reduce our commitment at this time. The next few weeks are vital and we need to see this through.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have had the opportunity to discuss with him and other colleagues their recent visit to Iraq, and they have helpfully set out for me some of the more practical details of what they want to see achieved quickly in Iraq. I am very conscious of that matter, and we will take it fully on board.

Alex Salmond: When is any Minister in this Government going to admit that they have led this country and our troops into a morass of monumental proportions? The Government are no longer in control of events, and the Secretary of State is dodging deployment decisions in Najaf at a time when the American President is predicting chaos to come. What is wrong with a policy of replacing American and British troops with troops drawn from Islamic nations under UN authority? When will the Government accept that we now need an exit strategy, not a "dig a bigger hole" policy?

Geoff Hoon: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not had the opportunity to watch the lunchtime news, but there appears to be encouraging news from Najaf, which is completely contrary to his forecast. I accept that he has been remarkably consistent: he has come to the House and forecast doom and disaster at every turn. However, the situation has not developed in the way that he has described, and it does not appear to be developing in that way today in Najaf. He should be paying tribute to the way in which coalition forces have dealt sensitively and sensibly with the position in Najaf, rather than running everyone down in that way.

Paul Flynn: I should have thought that the loss of 68 British lives was enough of a disaster for us not to dismiss it. Is it not true that the New York Times has just apologised for misleading its readers because it believed the lies of the crook Ahmad Chalabi? Is it not the case that Members might well have been misled on the war, which has not found weapons of mass destruction, which has not decreased the threat of terrorism—but increased it—and which has replaced the torture rooms of Saddam Hussein with the torture rooms of George Bush? If there is to be a major extension of our troops in Iraq, it is absolutely right that we follow the example of the first time around, and vote on it. Is it not the case that the Secretary of State is against a vote because he believes that he would lose it, and that the country would not forgive us if—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One supplementary is just fine.

Geoff Hoon: I note with interest the accounts concerning Mr. Chalabi. As my hon. Friend will be aware, there is currently an investigation into the intelligence that formed the basis of our decision to take military action in Iraq, and I am sure that those responsible will also be looking carefully at the newspaper accounts.

Edward Leigh: In view of what the Secretary of State has said on Najaf, will he reassure the House that no requests have been issued by our American allies for British troops to deploy outside their area? Is it his present intention to keep British troops in their existing zone of operation in the foreseeable future?

Geoff Hoon: I made it clear in the conclusion of my statement that there are continuing discussions, particularly on ensuring security in the handover to Iraqi sovereignty. We are well aware of determined threats to disrupt that handover, and there is likely to be an upsurge of violence, not least against Iraqis. We have seen some appalling recent incidents directed against those Iraqis who have the courage and determination to stand up for their country and attempt to rebuild it. That is why we are continuing to consider the position as we move towards the handover.

Harry Cohen: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), are the Government considering security control by British forces of Najaf and Karbala? Has that been requested and if so, by whom?

Geoff Hoon: I have made it clear that we are currently considering a range of issues. It is important that we, with our coalition partners, continue to examine the security situation as we move towards the handover. I am sure that even those opposed to the military action in Iraq would recognise that the return of Iraq to a sovereign interim Iraqi Government is a vital stage in the process of allowing Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own affairs. We must therefore ensure that they have appropriate security support during that period.

John Barrett: Will the Secretary of State say exactly when the decision was taken to send these troops? The House was told yesterday lunchtime that no decision had been taken, but 24 hours later, we are being told that it has now been taken. What has changed between yesterday and today?

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Cabinet tends to meet on a Thursday morning.

Alan Simpson: Even those of us who believed that Britain was misled into an illegal war on Iraq understand the current predicaments of the UK troops there. Will the Secretary of State clarify two points from his statement? On the current deployments, he used the words "the latest advice" from commanders in the field. Was that in the form of a request from those commanders, rather than a request from the US Government? Will he also acknowledge that the mandate that the Government have from Parliament does not extend to an increased role in Iraq that would specifically deploy UK troops under US command? Nothing would put UK troops at greater risk than being placed alongside US torturers, in an indistinguishable relationship.

Geoff Hoon: To deal with my hon. Friend's second point first, UK troops have been under US command repeatedly in recent times, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, which did not appear to place them at great risk, if I may say so. On his first observation, he misunderstands the way in which such matters work. Obviously, we keep under regular review the number and nature of our forces in our areas of operation and discuss that on a regular basis with the General Officer Commanding. When that officer indicates that in his military judgment there is a requirement for more forces or for a different mix of those forces, we consider that carefully. If appropriate, as is the case now, we take the necessary decisions.

James Clappison: We are all proud of the courage and professionalism of our soldiers, but they are being stretched thinly, and some units particularly thinly. Will the Secretary of State answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) put to him on the Black Watch? That was one of a number of highly pertinent questions that the Secretary of State just did not answer.

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not listening sufficiently carefully. I made it clear that the Black Watch was deploying because it had the appropriate training and equipment.

Diane Abbott: This fresh deployment, on the basis of the Secretary of State's statement, appears to be minimal. Is he aware, however, that the public would be seriously worried about any further large deployment, particularly if it involved deepening and extending our role? Although no one in the House is calling for troops to be withdrawn immediately, people would like to know that we do indeed have an exit strategy.

Geoff Hoon: I hope that I have at least set in train in my hon. Friend's mind the idea that supporting a sovereign interim Government with our forces—operating in the way in which we have in places as diverse as Bosnia, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone, and being able to train local forces in precisely the same way as in those areas—holds out the prospect of providing the opportunity, in time, as the security situation allows for it, for more and more security tasks to be taken over by Iraqi forces, rather than their relying on the multinational coalition. That is the process that we are setting out to achieve, and it can be achieved as soon as those Iraqi forces are able to carry out the responsibilities that we currently undertake.

Robert Key: I support the troop deployments announced. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the troops now going out, and all British forces in theatre, are fully briefed on the terms of the Geneva convention on treating prisoners with dignity and honour, and that that extends to not taking photographs of them and then publishing them? What constraints apply to the media over their publishing photographs that they might have bought?

Geoff Hoon: I can give that assurance, which I feel that I have already given to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). As a matter of law, there appear to be no formal, legal constraints to prevent a newspaper from publishing fake photographs. Nevertheless, I hope that newspapers, not least in the light of this particular terrible incident, will think more carefully in future before publication.

Ian Davidson: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us are increasingly concerned at the way in which a growing number of British troops seem to be getting sucked into a hole that the Americans have dug, and which they continue to excavate? What steps is he taking to ensure that the concern felt in this House about the behaviour of American troops in Iraq—their over-liberal use of firepower and their treatment of prisoners—is conveyed to the Americans? Surely no British soldier's life should be put at risk simply to try to help the re-election of George Bush.

Geoff Hoon: On my hon. Friend's factual proposition, he will be aware that at the height of operations in and around Iraq, some 45,000 members of Britain's armed forces were involved. That number was rapidly reduced to 8,500, and today's announcement involves only a very modest increase in numbers. As I have pointed out, we adjusted the numbers in the light of the security situation on the ground. That process will go on, in the light of advice from the General Officer Commanding.

Nigel Evans: I support the deployment of extra troops; indeed, if the Secretary of State has received such advice it would be folly to go against it. When did he receive the request from the General Officer Commanding, and when did he himself decide to deploy extra troops? Following what he said about the Cabinet, can we now be assured that any other requests will come before full Cabinet before further deployments are made?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman will surely know that the process of ordering the extra troops required to deal with a situation on the ground takes some time—when time is available. Equally, if it is a matter of urgency, the process can be completed within 24 hours. Decisions have been taken to deploy British troops, and they have arrived in theatre within 24 hours. It does not make sense to set out in detail the process through which such decisions are taken, simply because as much time as is needed will be taken to achieve the required improvement in security.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that there will be no further increase whatever in British troops deployed in Iraq, that they will not come under American command, and that if the coalition Government taking over on 1 July want them to withdraw, they will go? By what date does he expect all British troops to be out of Iraq?

Geoff Hoon: I have made it clear that we keep the number and nature of British troops in Iraq under constant review, so I cannot give my hon. Friend the first assurance that he seeks. So far as the position after 30 June is concerned, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear—indeed, it follows from the transfer of sovereignty—that in the event of an interim Iraqi Government's deciding that coalition forces were no longer welcome and that they no longer consented to their presence, obviously, those forces would be withdrawn.

Peter Luff: Is the Secretary of State seriously telling the House that the only Warrior-trained infantry battalion available to go to Iraq is the 1st Battalion the Black Watch? If so, will he at least take this opportunity to express to the soldiers involved and their families his regret at the stress that they are being put under by his decision?

Geoff Hoon: I will not express any such regret. Those troops are available and trained in the job that they are required to do; I am confident that they will be pleased to carry it out.

European and Local Elections

Christopher Leslie: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to update the House on progress in the administration of the European parliamentary and local elections. A number of Members made points of order yesterday in response to media reports, so I thought that it would assist the House if I gave a short report on the picture so far.
	No unexpected issues have been reported to my Department in those parts of the country where voting will occur through conventional means. In respect of the all-postal voting pilots in the north-east, the north-west, the east midlands and Yorkshire and Humber, at this early stage regional returning officers are reporting good progress in general. They all remain on track for issuing ballot packs by next Tuesday, 1 June, in accordance with the regulations.
	Twelve printing contractors are involved in the all-postal pilot trials. Because of technical issues associated with the data processing and printing machines operated by associates of one contractor—Opt2Vote—some local returning officers did not receive their printed ballot packs to the schedule originally anticipated. No doubt this delay has caused some of the concerns that have already been voiced, particularly in the east midlands, where Opt2Vote has the largest contract. Contingency arrangements appear to be working well. I am assured that spare printing capacity is being employed across the country and that the printing issue is now in hand. Revised printing schedules from Opt2Vote indicate that it will be able to meet the 1 June issuing deadline for all local authorities.
	Separately, the managing director of one other contractor was taken ill, which caused a printing delay for two local authorities. I am pleased to report that the returning officers in question have been able to reallocate ballot pack printing, and I should like to thank the other contractors and the local authority in-house printing teams for employing their spare capacity.
	Overall, 127 local authorities are taking part in the all-postal pilots, and 49 local authorities are still in the process of printing. This is within the margins of the targets set, and I am confident that the deadlines to hand over packs to the Royal Mail will be met. Thirteen of the 40 authorities in the east midlands have already had their ballot packs delivered to the Royal Mail, and in the north-west 28 of the 43 authorities' packs have been delivered. In the north-east, 19 out of 23 packs have been passed to the Royal Mail and other deliverers, and in Yorkshire and Humber 18 out of 21 have gone to the Royal Mail.
	I am pleased to report to the House that the Royal Mail is responding efficiently and effectively to the challenge of all-postal voting. We have established excellent relations with the management teams in each region and at a national level. Yesterday, I met Adam Crozier, chief executive of the Royal Mail, and plans to ensure delivery as quickly as possible were confirmed. Many electors have already received their voting papers, and some papers have even been returned to returning officers. I encourage electors with postal votes to make their choice, complete their ballot papers and post them by 8 June, to ensure they are safely delivered to returning officers in plenty of time for the close of poll on 10 June.
	All-postal voting has been piloted for several years, gradually scaling up from local pilots to this year's four regional pilots. The initiative is being tested to discover the impact on turnout, and the signs are that millions more electors will participate as a result of receiving their ballot papers at home. This is surely to be welcomed, as our democracy rests on achieving the most widespread involvement of as many people as possible.
	I hope that the House finds this short update useful, and that it will pay tribute to the sterling efforts of professional and dedicated returning officers throughout the country. They are rising to the challenge of making voting easier and more convenient for the public at large, and I am confident that the elections will run smoothly.

Bernard Jenkin: Nobody is fooled by the Minister's phoney confidence. I invite the House to picture the scene in the private office as the messages come flooding in and bits of paper are flying around, with the Minister's mentors saying, "Play this very low key and keep it as quiet as possible, so as not to cause alarm." The fact is that the Government have created a potentially extremely serious situation. The Minister did not tell the House just now that the plan was for ballot papers to be distributed this week—such are the contracts that he negotiated—and for the first of the returns to be opened this weekend in every single authority. However, many local authorities in the four northern regions have yet to have their ballot papers printed.
	Should ballot papers for 125,000 electors in Bradford, for example, fail to be delivered to the Post Office by the close of play next Tuesday, what will happen? Paragraph 14 of schedule 2 to the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (All Postal) Pilot Order 2004 states the situation clearly:
	"The ballot pack shall be issued by the returning officer as soon as practicable after 5pm on the 17th May 2004"—
	and that was a long time ago—
	"and not later than the 1st June 2004".
	The initial legal advice that we have received is categorical. In Bradford, Newcastle or Preston, any substantial failure to deliver ballot packs to the Post Office by close of play next Tuesday would mean cancelling and re-running not just the local elections in those places, but the European elections for the whole of those regions.
	The only alternative would be a recall of Parliament next week for emergency legislation. Of course, the returning officers and their staff will do everything possible to achieve the deadline, despite the Government's arrogance and stupidity, but let the House not take their dedication and professionalism for granted. I join the Minister in thanking the thousands of public servants involved. Let us lament their wrecked bank holiday weekend, which results from the Government's incompetence.
	Even if all the deadlines are met, some electors will inevitably be disfranchised by the delays. Anyone going abroad this weekend for a fortnight will not be able to vote. The House recognises that this hapless Minister is only obeying orders by appearing here today. Is not the Deputy Prime Minister the man responsible for making this great democracy begin to seem more like a banana republic? Is the Minister going to try to deny that if the Government had accepted the advice of the Electoral Commission for a much smaller pilot he would not be making this humiliating statement today?
	I listened to the words of the Minister when he said that the Government were "gradually scaling up" the pilot. The Government have rammed through at short notice legislation that they never originally intended to introduce to put a third of the English electorate under a so-called pilot. That is now proving to have been a rash act. Was not the Deputy Prime Minister warned about this time and time again? The chairman of the Electoral Commission, Sam Younger, personally wrote to him on 4 March saying:
	"Preparation time is already limited and further delays will add uncertainties and risks."
	He wrote again on 23 March. He said:
	"May I emphasise again how important it is to resolve this issue."
	Surely the fact that the Minister mentioned one illness in his statement shows what risks the Government were taking. Will he admit that the real reason for defying the Electoral Commission's advice was the Deputy Prime Minister's determination to pilot all-postal voting in all the three regions due to hold referendums on elected regional assemblies in the autumn? The ultimate question that the Government must answer is why the Government are always so ready to abandon principle and consensus in order to pursue their own cheap, narrow sectarian advantage?

Christopher Leslie: I presume that the tone of the hon. Gentleman's response was intended to gain some sectarian advantage for the Conservative party: what it will probably do is quite the opposite. Those with responsibility in this House—I include in my comments Members from all parties—will recognise that it is important that we maintain public confidence in the manner in which our elections are administered. It is the responsibility of returning officers at regional and local level. I have confidence in their abilities to cope. They all say that they are happy to be coping with the all-postal arrangements. They report that, while there have been some delays, as I mentioned in my statement, the printing schedules are on track to meet the 1 June deadline.
	The hon. Gentleman speculated what might happen in certain circumstances. He mentioned legal advice that he had received. I do not expect that we will go past the 1 June deadline. As that situation is not likely to arise, I do not believe that it is necessary to go into that level of speculation.
	The hon. Gentleman made a point about Bradford. I have looked into that area. I understand that the ballot packs are due to be with Royal Mail today and tomorrow, which is clearly ahead of the 1 June deadline.
	There were problems with a number of contractors—especially Opt2Vote in the east midlands—but I believe that contingency plans are working well and that we are on track to use some of the spare printing capacity that is around. These issues arise all the time in elections, but because the all-postal elections are subject to obvious scrutiny it is natural that hon. Members are paying particular attention. I believe that the elections will run smoothly, but I caution all hon. Members. We need to be responsible about the tone and language that we use when we speak about the administration of elections. It is important that people realise that the returning officers can cope. They will run the elections well. The arrangements are on target; we are on track. The hysteria from the hon. Gentleman is unwarranted.

Harry Barnes: This pilot would now seem to be sunk. Who will be the last returning officer to receive the packs? By what dates should the packs initially have been received, according to the schedule? What extra help will be provided to returning officers to see that they are able to meet the deadline for the distribution of ballot papers?

Christopher Leslie: As I explained some moments ago, 1 June is the deadline in the regulations for the issuing of ballot packs—that means that they go from the printers to Royal Mail. We are on track to do that. The media reports of how printers factor in the scheduling of their different printing arrangements have led to some of the stories. I assure my hon. Friend that the regulations will be adhered to, that electors will get their ballot packs in time and that they will have ample opportunity to complete and return them. We are in constant dialogue with the returning officers for all the regions, especially the east midlands, given the size of the Opt2Vote contract. We will continue to give assistance to them as appropriate. They are the clients of the contractors, yet we are helping in looking for spare printing capacity as and when that is necessary. I do not believe that there is any need at this stage to have a lack of confidence in the returning officers.

David Heath: I am grateful for the statement, but any lack of confidence is not in the returning officers but in the Government who got them into this mess.
	Was not the Minister's statement astonishingly complacent given the scale of the problems? In the east midlands, with the single exception of Chesterfield borough council, which was allowed to do its own thing in terms of printing because it had conducted a previous pilot successfully, all the local authorities were forced into the hands of a contractor who clearly could not cope. Many returning officers will not have the packs until 1 June, which is the date by which they should have been sent to voters.
	The Minister blandly says that in the north-east 19 out of 23 local authorities will be on time, without mentioning that the four that will not be on time happen to be Newcastle, Gateshead and north and south Tyneside, which represent almost a third of the electorate in the north-east. Will the Minister explain who are the "other deliverers" apart from Royal Mail that he mentioned in his statement? He made no reference to the returning officers who are having to cope with printers who have made mistakes in the composition of the packs and papers that have been sent to the wrong electors. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has mentioned two pairs of wards in his area that were affected last night. We now know that in at least two further wards—Stepping Hill in the Stockport constituency and Heald Green in the Cheadle constituency—electors simply have received the wrong ballot papers in the post. It is difficult to see how that will be corrected.
	There was an arrangement agreed by all parties, the Electoral Commission and Royal Mail for a moratorium that prevented any ballot packs from being delivered with the election material from a single political party, because that clearly would give a bias. That moratorium is not being adhered to. Has the Minister anything to say about the integrity of an election that is in that position?
	If the ballot papers are not in the hands of the electors on 1 June, which is what the regulation requires, will regional and local returning officers or the Minister's office have any power to suspend, extend or cancel the elections?
	This disaster could have been avoided had the Minister listened more to the expert advice of the Electoral Commission and of this House and had he not acceded to the bullying of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Christopher Leslie: It is exceptionally disappointing that Opposition spokespeople have tried to capitalise on what are normal printing arrangements and difficulties, which are encountered in any election arrangement. They will all know that, from time to time, the printing schedules have to change because of technological issues and, in this case, the printing machines and the process by which ballot packs can be produced. However, so long as those ballot packs are produced within the target margins—before the deadline of 1 June—I am confident that we can run these elections smoothly.
	It is incumbent on all hon. Members, particularly those who are party spokespeople, to think very carefully about such an opportunistic attempt to jump in on any story that may come along, to claim that all the elections are somehow in jeopardy. That is not the case. The elections will run smoothly. I am confident from the assurances that I have had from the regional returning officers, who are the professionals involved, that they have ample capability to cope with any necessary arrangement, and Royal Mail will also be able to cope with the delivery arrangements. Hon. Members must bear in mind the fact that others are watching and need to see this.
	In respect of the hon. Gentleman's point about the east midlands, I do not believe that all those returning officers were forced to use Opt2Vote contractors. They had an opt-out arrangement with the regional returning officer, and all but one chose to use Opt2Vote. Most of the difficulty in the north-east was due to the illness of one managing director at Document Technologies, but we have now found arrangements whereby the in-house printers in the Sunderland local authority have helped out in catching up with the printing there, so I believe that the problems are solved in that area.
	I will look further into the points that the hon. Gentleman raises about Stockport, but I believe that, when we consider the scale of these all-postal elections— 14.2 million people are involved—the elections will be successful. As I say, the general picture is one of good progress so far.

Keith Vaz: I welcome my hon. Friend's update. As he knows, Leicester is one of the pilot areas. We expected to receive our ballot papers this weekend, although the electoral registration officer assures me that they will go out next week. My hon. Friend knows that the papers can be either sent by post or delivered to a venue. In Leicester, the electoral registration officer has decided that there should be one venue—the town hall. In view of the delay in issuing those ballot papers, would it not be acceptable to have a venue in each parliamentary constituency in Leicester, thus making it easier for people to deliver their ballot papers if they receive them late, after they return from holiday? Will my hon. Friend issue guidance to that effect and provide help to local authorities if they wish to take up that suggestion?

Christopher Leslie: All the necessary guidance for local authorities is in place—I am confident about that—and the minimum number of assisted delivery points is one for each local authority, although it is a matter of discretion for local returning officers to choose whether to supply further assisted delivery points. I am not sure about the precise arrangements in Leicester, but that area was contracted to Opt2Vote, as part of the ballot delivery. I have seen the schedule, and we anticipate that its ballot packs for Leicester will be delivered in time. The regional returning officer for the east midlands, Roger Morris, is confident about that, but I will continue to monitor the situation.

Douglas Hogg: The Minister said that no unexpected issue has been reported to his Department. Does he understand that many hon. Members find that rather surprising? In my constituency, it was anticipated that the returning officer for North Kesteven district council would receive the ballots packs about a week ago. None will be received until Sunday, at the earliest, and many—probably most—will not be received, if all goes well, until Monday, which is the day before the things must be issued. That is a scandalous state of affairs, when the returning officer had desired at least a week's leave.

Christopher Leslie: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's question had the answer within it: the target deadline is 1 June. I am confident that we will have those ballot packs by then. Certainly, some local returning officers had anticipated that they could process ballot packs slightly earlier. There have been some delays because of data processing issues and the printing machine technology, but those issues are being rectified. The issuing of ballot packs is on schedule, and I believe that the elections will go successfully.

David Chaytor: May I tell the Minister about my concern? Three of the candidates in the local elections in Bury have recently been subject to damning reports by the Standards Board for England. All three of them have been involved in postal vote irregularities. A few weeks ago, one of them turned up at the town hall, demanding 200 postal vote application forms. The Crown Prosecution Service investigated the other two for irregularities in residential care homes. The fact that they are all Tory candidates is, I am sure, an absolute coincidence. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the guidance given to election candidates in respect of the handling of postal ballot forms is absolutely accurate and thorough? Is he confident that the integrity of the process is secure, particularly where candidates have financial interests in residential care homes?

Christopher Leslie: I understand that the Electoral Commission has been closely involved in drawing up suggestive guidance about the handling of ballot papers for all parties. That is available, and I am sure that all parties will have seen it. I am not aware of the issues that relate to the Standards Board for England. Those matters would be more appropriate for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but I will pass on my hon. Friend's comments to my hon. Friends.

Peter Bottomley: Has the Minister received any legal advice covering the events that he does not anticipate happening—if things are not done within the statutory deadlines? In his discussions with regional and local returning officers, has he asked them to monitor the ballot papers that are received too late to be counted and to make notes of the postmarks, showing when they were posted?

Christopher Leslie: The latter point was made during debates on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, and we said then that the Electoral Commission would consider monitoring such issues in the report that it will produce by the middle of September. That will be a good way to investigate what happens during the pilot schemes and trials that we undertake.
	On the first point, of course, I receive legal advice all the time on the various contingencies and options. That is the case in this situation as well. It would be wrong if I did not constantly stay in touch with the legal position; but, as I say, I have full confidence that we will not need to be in a position where regulations are not adhered to.

Angela Eagle: May I reassure my hon. Friend that the ballot papers in my constituency appear to be popping through people's doors this morning, exactly on time? That is a clear example of the system working. Will he comment in a bit more detail on the data processing problems? Do some of the problems stem from the fact that electoral registers in the UK are held in all sorts of different ways and that local authorities organise them in ways that do not line up with one another? Could we learn some lessons about modernising the way in which we keep our electoral registers if we are to proceed with such experiments in the future and make voting easier?

Christopher Leslie: I am glad that my hon. Friend's constituents are receiving their ballot packs. That is the case for most electors in the pilot regions. Listening to one or two examples of printing queries, people would think that the problems are widespread. That is not the case. I have confidence in the returning officers, and these elections will run smoothly. She also raises a fair point about the form in which electoral registers are held. That is something on which the Electoral Commission has made recommendations in the past. We are considering standardising electoral registration data nationwide, but that is perhaps something for future legislation.

Peter Atkinson: I do not know where the Minister has been hiding, but had he looked at the regional press in the north-east this morning, he would have seen the front-page headline of Newcastle's The Journal, which says "The big postal voting farce". More than 600,000 ballot papers have yet to be issued in the north-east. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, those had to be issued, as soon as practicable, after 5 pm on 17 May, which was 10 days ago. Will the Minister answer the question that we have been trying to get him to answer: what happens if the postal ballots do not reach the returning officers by 1 June? Is the election valid or invalid?

Christopher Leslie: The validity of any election is a matter for the law, not for Ministers. That would be taken up should a returning officer be in breach of his legal obligations. We do not anticipate that returning officers will be in breach of their legal obligations. They report good progress in ensuring that they stay on target and on track with the 1 June deadline. That is the situation.
	I understand that this will be a newsworthy event. No doubt newspapers will have lurid headlines. I repeat, however, that it is important that we do not have hysterical comments, such as those that we heard from the Opposition Front Benches. It is important to take a moment to think about the need for public confidence in the way in which our returning officers act in the administration of elections. They do a good job, and they are doing a good job this time, too.

Alan Simpson: It would be wrong to describe the problem as something that relates to the competence of the returning officers; it is about whether they will have the ballot papers for distribution by 1 June. The problems in the east midlands are summed up by what seems to be the rebranding of the company responsible for the print contract. It is now more popularly referred to not as Opt2Vote, but as "Out to Lunch". Will the Minister give the commitment to Members who represent constituencies in the east midlands that we will be given a detailed description of the safety net provisions that will be put in place so that we can discharge our duties to the electorate should Opt2Vote still find itself dining out on its own incompetence?

Christopher Leslie: I am sorry that my hon. Friend characterises the work of one contractor in that way. It has encountered difficulties, but that does not mean that disaster has struck. It is on target to deliver ballot packs on schedule on 1 June. That is the situation, and my hon. Friend would not expect me to report anything but the facts. I believe that the information that I am receiving from the regional returning officer for the east midlands is accurate. He has good contingency plans in place. I will, of course, endeavour to keep all hon. Members informed of developments. I thought that it would be useful to update the House on progress so far, which, by and large, is good.

Nigel Evans: I can imagine why the Government do not want local or European elections, but to make a shambles of the election process is beyond the pale. If there were no problem, the Minister would not have made a statement—so he obviously accepts that there is one.
	I spoke to the returning officer in Preston today. Ballot papers should be dropping through people's letterboxes, but the proper checks need to be carried out and the returning officer is doing the proofing now. Does the Minister accept that had those papers dropped through letterboxes on time, some people who are going on holiday would have been able to vote, but now they cannot? Had they known that the election process would be a shambles, they could have arranged a proxy vote. We warned him that he should not persist with postal ballots in the north-west. The Government forced that through, against all the advice. It is his responsibility. He must take the blame.

Christopher Leslie: Intemperate language does not get the hon. Gentleman any further forward. I thought that it was important to give the House an update, not least because of media reports and yesterday's points of order. Had I not done that, no doubt more points of order would have been raised, asking where Ministers are and so on. I am doing my best to describe the picture of what is happening according to regional returning officers. They have reported good progress so far. We are at an early stage, not forgetting that close of poll is 10 June. We still have a long time to go, and no doubt anecdotes will be heard from time to time. We try as hard as we can, as do the returning officers, to ensure that the elections are infallible, although issues will arise from time to time. I repeat: we are on schedule to deliver successful elections. I have no reason to doubt that at this stage.

Gordon Prentice: My hon. Friend mentioned his meeting with Adam Crozier yesterday. Did Mr. Crozier give a 100 per cent. guarantee that ballot papers posted on 8 June would arrive with returning officers on polling day on 10 June? Can the Minister remind me whether anything is on the ballot paper to indicate that it must be returned by 8 June to be counted?

Christopher Leslie: I discussed the return of ballot papers with the chief executive of Royal Mail. Although there will be a sweep of post boxes right up until the close of the poll, we are advising electors to ensure that they post their ballot papers by 8 June to be certain that the returning officers receive them in plenty of time. We want to ensure that as many electors as possible know that. It is in the advice that they receive in their ballot packs. I hope that my hon. Friend will help in promulgating that message.

Peter Luff: The Minister is a decent chap and I am anxious to help him. He must realise that he has not convinced the House, and hon. Members on both sides remain concerned. May I draw his attention to a couple of facts? The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said yesterday that the elections are worse than those in a third-world democracy, or words to that effect. We recently had highly successful and efficient elections in the world's largest democracy—India—which compare favourably with the mess that we are in. Even at this late stage, why does not the Minister think of inviting Commonwealth parliamentary election observers to ensure the integrity of the elections?

Christopher Leslie: I look forward to when the hon. Gentleman next meets his returning officers. I think that I will post them copies of his comments. I am sure that they will be astonished at the intemperate language that he uses to describe their dedication to their task. They are perfectly capable of dealing with the arrangements and have them in hand. We have seen the ballot packs going out, and the vast majority are already with Royal Mail. We are on schedule to meet the 1 June target.

Graham Brady: On 16 March, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee took evidence from secure printers, in particular De La Rue Security Products and Document Technology Ltd. They expressed grave doubts about the viability of the process. De La Rue, probably the biggest and most highly thought of secure printer, had already decided at the beginning of March not to tender for the ballot paper printing because, in the words of Mr. Keith Brown:
	"We took the view subsequent to that, in early March, that we have withdrawn from this year's pilots on the basis both of potential lack of print capacity, but also in terms of procurement lead times for key pieces of equipment."
	This shambles was not only predictable but foreseen by those who knew what they were doing. It is patently obvious from what has happened in the past few days that Ministers do not have a clue what they are doing. Given the fiasco over which the Minister presides, will he take the responsibility, of which he spoke, and apologise to the House, returning officers and the electorate for the mess? Will he also give an undertaking that anyone who does not receive their ballot paper in time will be able to cast a vote in the traditional way, at a polling station, on 10 June?

Christopher Leslie: Again, I regret the hon. Gentleman's approach. I do not know whether it was clear to the House where his quote ended, but his talk about shambles and so on was not part of De La Rue's comments. Different contractors and printers have taken a different view of whether they want to participate. We have 12 main contractors involved in the scheme and have experienced delays with, I think, two of them. We are in touch with them and the returning officers are working closely with them, bringing them back on track. We do not have a problem that is as widespread as the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is important for him to take a step back, take a breath and realise that the elections are running smoothly.

Julian Lewis: Judging by his statement the Minister will be assessing the success or otherwise of this experiment according to whether turnout goes up. As someone who, 20 years ago, worked with other Conservatives, Liberals and the then Social Democrats to try to restore integrity to trade union ballot practices, may I assure the hon. Gentleman that the measure of whether an election has integrity is not the level of the turnout? If turnout goes up it is often a sign that there has been multiple voting, cheating, ballot stuffing and abuse in general. How confident is the Minister that when these elections are over there will not be a great many reports about abuses?

Christopher Leslie: I am really disappointed with the hon. Gentleman. Saying that a higher turnout is a sign of malpractice is beyond reality. He needs to appreciate the track record of previous postal pilots; they all proved successful in raising the electorate's participation, and that will happen again in these elections. The Electoral Commission will be undertaking an investigation and review of how the pilots work and, as I said, it will report in September.

George Osborne: I am glad that the Minister responded to my point of order yesterday and came to the House to make a statement today. He may be aware that the regional returning officer in the north-west, the chief executive of Manchester city council, had an emergency meeting with returning officers in Cheshire and West Lancashire last night, and they are moving heaven and earth to get the ballot papers out as soon as they receive them from the printers. Does the Minister, on behalf of the Government, accept any responsibility at all for this mess?

Christopher Leslie: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made his point of order yesterday; I saw it in Hansard and wanted to come to the House to respond to it. It is important that hon. Members have that opportunity to raise issues from time to time, even though those issues may not necessarily be points of order.
	I am aware that Howard Bernstein, the regional returning officer in the north-west, is meeting colleagues in different areas to discuss issues, and quite right too. That is exactly the job that regional returning officers should be doing. I think that they are doing a good job, and I believe that the elections will be successful.

Point of order

NOTHING

Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and in light of the Minister's inability to tell the House what would be the legal consequences of the failure to get the ballot papers issued by 1 June, is there any way by which we can get a competent and capable Minister to the House this afternoon who can answer what is in fact a very simple question of enormous consequence? It is my belief that if that issuing did not take place the elections would be effectively void, which would reflect very badly on the state of our parliamentary democracy. We also want to know what provision the Government will be making to recall Parliament next week in those circumstances so that we can act to prevent the entirety of the European election process being voided as well.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are very serious matters, but they are not ones that the Chair can deal with at this time. The whole House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman put on record. Matters concerning the recall of Parliament are all laid down in the Orders of the House.

Whitsun Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Iain Coleman: I welcome this opportunity to speak, I promise very briefly, about three important constituency matters: the proposed closure of more post offices, the troublesome state of postal deliveries and the new arm's-length management organisation that will in future be responsible for the majority of public housing in the area.
	Approximately 18 months ago I raised in the House the matter of the closure of a Crown post office in North End road in Fulham. I predicted that it would be a disaster for the community and said that I had no confidence in the public consultations that Royal Mail would purportedly carry out. Despite the strongest possible objections from the local council, the community at large, Postwatch and myself, the closure went ahead. Sure enough, we have been proved right and the closure has been appalling for the area. The queues at the so-called alternative post offices in the area are unacceptably long, and pensioners have not been signing up for direct debit. It is hard to imagine what has been gained by the venture, except for a poorer service in the area and a deeply sceptical attitude among local people towards Royal Mail and the Post Office.
	There has also been the closure of the Richmond Way branch, also in my constituency, in August 2003, the implementation of which was nothing less than a farce. I wish that I could say that I am astonished that the Post Office is doing that all over again, but I am afraid that I am not at all surprised. That will not, however, keep me from registering my continued grave concern for its actions in my constituency and pointing out the huge number of representations that I have received from local people who are very angry about it.
	There are now proposals for the closure of a further two branches, in Brackenbury road and Fulham Palace road. Although I understand that those two branches are not in the same league as the North End road branch, being sub-post offices rather than Crown post offices, there seems to be a wanton disregard on the part of the Post Office for the local communities that these closures necessarily hurt. If the proposals do go through, and I fear that they most certainly will as they are effectively a fait accompli, that will amount to the closure of five post offices in my constituency in less than two years. Although the Post Office continues to assure us that there are easily accessible alternative post offices for individuals to use, it consistently fails to acknowledge that the closures have been carried out in some of the most deprived and vulnerable areas of London.
	Another matter of concern for my constituency is also, unfortunately, related to Royal Mail and the Post Office. Royal Mail's recent restructuring, which involves the merging of the two mail deliveries into a single daily delivery, has been ruinous and caused untold grief and chaos for individuals and businesses in Hammersmith. Those cost-cutting measures resulted in almost 20 per cent. of the work force at the Hammersmith sorting office being made redundant, and the use of temporary workers has added to the general confusion and negligence. That is supposedly all an effort to boost productivity, increase efficiency and cut costs. To add insult to injury, I have now been advised that the local sorting office will have to hire another eight staff.
	I have already had two meetings with the relevant local managers, who have done their best to be helpful. They have advised me that they are sure that the situation will get better, and I have to say that services are improving. However, I am advised that a similar scheme will be introduced in Fulham in the near future, and I have little confidence that it will be pulled off smoothly. The failure to implement the scheme efficiently in Hammersmith was partly due to a general disregard for the specifics of the area, such as productivity, targets, staffing and the like, and that seems to be an endemic failure in Royal Mail at large. Whereas each community has particular needs and requirements, Royal Mail has a tendency to favour the one-size-fits-all method. The only logical explanation for the new arrangements is that they are an attempt to save money and stuff the consequences for what, after all, is supposed to be a public service. The reality, though, is that extra resources have been spent on redundancy costs and the employment of many casual staff, whose productivity and quality of service has understandably and inevitably been extremely poor. As with post office closures, we must continue to be very wary of further geographical extension of these changes, and I strongly urge the management of the Post Office promptly to review the new arrangements before we have yet another debacle on our hands in other local postal districts.
	I would just like to say a few words about the new arm's-length management organisation that will in future be responsible for providing housing services for 14,000 tenants and 4,650 leaseholders in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.
	In the past, I have expressed disappointment in the Chamber at the Government's insistence that the local authority set up an ALMO. Hammersmith and Fulham has an excellent housing department that was recognised by the Audit Commission in a comprehensive audit assessment of the service. It awarded the department a three-star rating and, in the light of that award, the Government should not insist on the setting up of an ALMO before they have provided the necessary investment to meet their own decent housing standard.
	The council set up its own housing commission, composed of tenants and leaseholders, under an independent chair, and it carried out a detailed investigation of the housing department. The commission's unanimous view was that the council should be allowed to remain as the landlord and that the normal routes of stock transfers or ALMOs should not be compulsory for Hammersmith and Fulham. It also took the view that if change was essential to secure money from the Government, the ALMO route was preferable to a stock transfer or any other option. Eventually, the council agreed to an independent ballot of all leaseholders and tenants, and there was an overwhelming majority in favour of setting up an ALMO.
	Next week, on 1 June, the ALMO goes live, and 410 staff will be transferred from the council's employment to the new company, which is wholly owned by the council and governed by a board. A legislative framework is in place to establish the relationship with the council and the company's business objectives. The company will be able to access funds from the Government's ALMO programme, and it has submitted a bid for £190 million. It anticipates receiving additional funding of £100 million between 2004 and 2010, so a total programme worth £300 million will be delivered for local housing if the bid is approved in full.
	A number of other hurdles need to be successfully negotiated. We expect to hear in September 2004 the funding allocation for 2004–05, following the outcome of the Government's comprehensive spending review. There will also be an inspection of the new arrangements in November, and the new company must be awarded a two or three-star rating for funding to be triggered. I wish to put on record my thanks and congratulations to all the tenants and leaseholders, the members of the ALMO board, and all the staff who have worked so hard. In the ballot, 81 per cent. voted in favour of the ALMO and, like me, they look forward to the new funding, which will bring new windows, kitchens, bathrooms and many other improvements to local people, who have waited for those upgrades for far too long. In conclusion, I urge the Government to make a speedy decision to fund in full the ALMO's excellent bid to meet the decent housing standard for tenants and leaseholders in Hammersmith and Fulham.

Paul Tyler: I am pleased to be able to contribute to our debate. I very much appreciate the fact that the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons will secure a ministerial response to issues raised in these Adjournment debates, which are among the most useful parliamentary occasions, as regulars in the Chamber today will agree. We can raise constituency matters and more general concerns in the knowledge that we will get a thoughtful response. If that were always the case, the electorate might hold the House in more respect.

Bob Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this occasion allows us to raise issues that are relevant to our constituents, and helps us to re-engage them with the democratic process? God knows, that is very much needed.

Paul Tyler: The hon. Gentleman anticipates something that I was going to deal with a little later. First, however, I want to use the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) as a case in point. Although he spoke about his constituency, I suspect that every hon. Member can identify with the points that he made about, for example, urban post offices. I am sure that, like me, hon. Members on both sides of the House have precisely the same experience of the way in which a Government-owned company—the Government still have the majority holding in the Post Office—treats them as representatives of the community and the general public. Post Office Counters Ltd. has an important responsibility to consult, which it does not always fulfil.
	To take up the hon. Gentleman's point about the Royal Mail, we heard today that the group has made profits again. Surely, this is the moment to expect better quality and standards of service. A few minutes ago, however, we heard that such is the Government's respect for the Royal Mail in one area of the country that they do not even trust it to deliver ballot papers in the north-east. The Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), did not respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), but in his statement he said that in the north-east ballot packs have been passed to the Royal Mail and other deliverers. This must be the first time ever that the Government have had to go outwith the Royal Mail network because they simply cannot trust it to do the job adequately. The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham is right to be concerned about the reliability of Royal Mail deliveries in his local area, and we are all entitled to know how it will improve its service to the public.
	There are important issues that we need to address before we adjourn for the recess. To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), this week, the constitution unit, led by Professor John Curtis, published research demonstrating that the collapse of public respect for politics and politicians owed more to perceptions of artificiality, politicians' mixed motives and alleged sleaze than disappointment with Government delivery. It also suggested that there was not a great collapse of trust in all institutions, so we cannot use that as an alibi for lack of respect for Parliament. It also dispelled the notion that that lack of respect can be ascribed to the prejudices of the tabloid press. To misquote Shakespeare, the fault is not in our stars, let alone The Sun, but in ourselves.
	Contributing to the perception of expensive, self-serving irrelevance is the way in which the House has failed to represent the true state of the body politic in Britain. For example, despite the decisions made in 1997 and 2001 by the electorate—the people who send us here and give this institution the reason for its existence—the House of Commons still operates as if it is a bipartisan body politic. It is not. The "Buggin's turn" approach to political debate and decision making has one last hiding place: the Chamber. Such an approach is not necessarily taken throughout Parliament, but it is certainly taken here. For example, there is an extraordinary arrangement whereby a large sum of state funding is awarded to the so-called official Opposition—it is not as if there are only two parties in the House. The leader of the larger Opposition party and his colleagues receive £0.5 million of state funding. The latest Library briefing shows that the Leader of the official Opposition received a salary of £124,277 per annum. I make no comment about whether he is worth that or not; that is what he receives. In an interesting comparison, the Speaker receives only slightly more, as do Cabinet Ministers. The Opposition Chief Whip, who is not here this afternoon, receives £95,281 per annum, and the Deputy Chief Whip and the Assistant Chief Whip each receive £81,809. The total package is worth more than £0.5 million of taxpayers' money. Let us imagine that, after the general election, Opposition party B has 150 Members and Opposition party C has 149. During the Parliament, a Member from party B decides to change party. They will carry on their back £0.5 million.

Chris Bryant: Would that not mean that the Labour party had only 360 seats, which seems very unlikely?

Paul Tyler: I shall hold the hon. Gentleman to his forecast. However, at the drop of a hat, there would be an extraordinary situation, with a transfer bonus of £500,000 or £600,000 a year. Someone could be encouraged to make such a change, demonstrating the odd way in which this House operates and the fact that it has not caught up with the views of the electorate at large.
	To give another example, there is no proper provision for the allocation of Opposition debates. It is ad hoc, arbitrary and pays no attention to parliamentary arithmetic, which, I remind the House, depends on the votes of the electorate.
	The electorate send us here. They must expect in this place reasonable respect for the way in which they express party allegiance. My colleagues and I often complain that representation in the House is not as accurate as we would like. We accept that in Committees, for example, there is a careful allocation by party arithmetically, but that does not apply to the allocation of debates.The timing of these debates is entirely in the hands of Government Whips, for goodness sake, which is obviously ridiculous.

Bridget Prentice: Hear, hear.

Paul Tyler: I am interested to hear a Government Whip agree from a sedentary position. It is extraordinary that a Buggins's turn approach applies, particularly between the Whips' Offices. Members will recall that when we tried to release the nomination of Members to Select Committees, there was an unholy alliance between the Conservative and the Labour Whips' Offices because they wanted to hold on to that. I suspect that there is a suspicion on the Government Benches, but particularly in the Government Whips' Office, that one day they might be in Opposition again—the pendulum might swing—so they would like to protect the position of the Official Opposition.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that at one time the Liberal Democrats used to represent all the minority parties when it came to Select Committee selections? The minority parties have rebelled and no longer wish to be under the Buggins's turn arrangements of the Liberal Democrats.

Paul Tyler: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is severely misinformed. We were enthusiastic for the Government to take on that responsibility. We might make recommendations, but ultimately it was in the Government's hands. The minority parties and the Liberal Democrats were at one in thinking that if the Government wanted to take responsibility, we were only too delighted for them to do so.
	The number of days for debate is still effectively not represented in Standing Orders in a way that reflects the arithmetic of the House. What is more, the picking of the days remains in the Government Whips' hands. We complained when the Liberal Democrats were not allocated a day during the long period when the situation in Iraq was unravelling, because the Government were fearful that we would raise that issue and there would be substantial Government Back-Bench support and a major Labour rebellion.
	Even in this debate, the situation is odd. On previous occasions, I have spoken towards the end of the debate and been able to respond, as I should like to, immediately before the Conservative spokesman and the Minister, to the interesting contributions from other hon. Members. Because of the way in which these matters are organised, it is still as though there are only two parties in the House.
	All those examples and many more simply contribute to the public perception that we do not catch up with the real life of the body politic. Three major parties were represented in this House in 1997 and it became obvious that it was not just a flash in the pan, although I must confess that even some of my colleagues wondered whether we would come back after 1997 in such numbers. After 2001, it became absolutely apparent that, despite the inadequacy of the first-past-the-post system, the situation in the House was different. The voters buried the two-party system in 1997 and they danced on its grave in 2001.
	There is a tendency when in government—perhaps some Members still hanker for those days—to think that it is all very simple and that somehow or other there are only two sides to every issue. I remind the House that the big issues of this Parliament have not been simply between the two Front Benches. Distinguished Conservative Members voted with me and my colleagues against the invasion of Iraq, together with a substantial number of Government Members. On tuition fees, foundation hospitals and so many issues there is no longer a two-way stretch in the House. There certainly is not in the country.
	Other parts of the building have adapted. Members who have had the interesting experience of speaking in Westminster Hall have found that Ministers are probed, questioned and chased as often by their own Back Benchers as by Opposition Members. On the whole, we have a much livelier discussion in the round.
	I do not believe that the pendulum will swing again as it used to in my youth. It is absurd for the Government to think that if it does, they must hold on to the cash and privileges that presently attach to the Official Opposition, in expectation of that day. What a confession of weakness from the Government if they think they are about to reoccupy the Opposition Benches.
	As was said earlier, this place does not enjoy the respect that it should. There are a number of reasons for that, but I have had time to touch on only one. Certainly, another is the extent to which we are an anomaly. Outside is a multi-party world that recognises three major parties, but this place has been left behind.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. While some fellow Members have understandably disappeared to their constituencies, the remainder are free to wax lyrical on subjects close to their heart. In short, while the three-line Whip is away, Members can, to some extent, play.
	An issue close to my heart is how to get people involved once again in the political process and directly in politics. It is about persuading people that politics matters, grabbing people when they are young and instilling in them the habit of getting involved in politics and the importance of making a difference. I shall not simply go over well-trodden ground in my arguments, nor focus on the importance of worthy but well-worn phrases, such as "democratic engagement". My appeal today to the House and those happy, select few who may chance upon these words is that we all have a responsibility to make politics sexy once again.
	By sexy, I am not referring to Members' alleged or real extra-curricular activities in times past in some of the more colourful, late-night London establishments. Nor am I referring to the way in which members of the press sometimes focus on, for example, the footwear of Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons. Nor am I referring to the fan website of the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), which describes her as
	"by far the most glamorous doll in British politics since Baroness Thatcher was put out to pasture."
	Nor am I referring to the popular preoccupation of the parliamentary estate and the fourth estate to engage in practices akin to political flagellation where we criticise ourselves to the nth degree for failing to use language that people understand, failing to dress cool or bling so that the youth vote can identify with us, or perpetuating in our strange parliamentary traditions that are deemed to turn people off. While all those issues have validity, they are constantly discussed and we return to them again and again masochistically. Valid as many of them are, they are essentially about style, not substance. They are about how we behave and conduct ourselves, not about what we do and can achieve.
	In my brief contribution I shall focus on the substance. Politics itself, the seemingly dry and dusty business of this place, is inherently sexy. If we scratch under the spin of presentation, what we do when we do it well makes a real difference to the lives of people in the United Kingdom and across the world. Some would say that politics described as "sexy" is an oxymoron; I would argue that it is not. Members of this House and the media are generally responsible for making it seem like an obvious oxymoron, whereas the two words are in fact complementary. Sometimes we make ourselves feel guilty for talking about politics and for talking up politics. I shall be bold and state on the record for posterity that politics is something to be proud of and that politicians should be proud of their vocation.
	If we asked a hundred people on the street what words and phrases they would use to describe politics and politicians, like the old quiz show that Les Dennis used to compere on television when five answers would appear on a screen, I suggest that the following would appear high on the list:
	"I'm not interested in politics"; "It's all men in grey suits"; "Nothing to do with me"; or even, "Frankly, I can't be bothered".
	Recently, I have spoken to two young men and one woman who wanted to get into politics and had aspirations to become Members of this place and even to become the next Prime Minister. If I paid any heed to the current and consistent view of politics and politicians, I would be tempted to draw on Noel Coward for inspiration and say to them—I will not sing, the House will be pleased to know—"Don't put your daughter into politics, Mrs. Worthington. Don't put your daughter into politics. The profession's disreputable, the job is pretty tough, and admitting that she wants to change the world is not enough. She's a nice girl and though her heart's in the right place, I wouldn't want to see her in despair or in disgrace. So I repeat, Mrs. Worthington, sweet Mrs. Worthington, don't put your daughter in this place." My apologies to the author.
	At least we can say that the mood of modern politics is truly international. The US author and commentator, Jedediya Purdy, believes that the common mood of cynicism in modern culture undermines the possibility of meaningful civic engagement: public service. Purdy argues that this mood of irony and cynicism, which one can even see in popular American television programmes such as "Late Night with David Letterman" and "Seinfeld", exemplifies the notion that it is impossible to take life seriously, and that all things are open to mockery and derision. Purdy observes that this seam of cynicism runs deepest among the better educated, which is especially damaging because these "cosmopolitans", as he calls them, are thus persuaded to strenuously avoid careers of public service.
	Yet, despite this gloom, Purdy, unlike many of his peers, insists that politics can be a territory where depth and moral courage can thrive and the common good can be promoted. At the risk of presenting myself as a self-righteous, sanctimonious prig, which is always a risk for politicians, I agree with the Purdy thesis. Let us call it, for the purposes of this speech, the Purdy principle. Politics can be a force for good. Politicians can be a force for good, too, and we should not be ashamed of standing up and saying that.
	Politics matters. Cynicism is sometimes deserved, but increasingly cynicism is a downright lazy approach to public affairs by those who report on or observe our efforts. The reality of a politician rarely being able to deliver absolutely everything that he or she promises mutates into "They promise everything but deliver nothing", and then into "They're all a bunch of self-serving so-and-sos". The reality that there are occasionally politicians who may lie or cheat, just as there are bad apples in every walk of life, becomes "You can't trust any one of them an inch". The reality that we occasionally get things wrong becomes "They're all about as much use as a chocolate fireguard".
	The first line of my job description says, "Must have broad shoulders". The second line says, "Must be able to laugh at himself daily and hourly". The third says, "Must not read the papers or watch politics on television, for fear of taking things—or himself—too seriously". Is politics so bad, so shameful, so deplorable? Should Mrs. Worthington send her daughter into the profession, or would she be better advised:
	"Get thee to a nunnery",
	Hamlet-style? Should my wife and sons change their surname to avoid ridicule in the streets? I do not believe so, and I shall explain why.
	Politics can, in many small ways, change lives. I would not be here if I did not think so. Let me give the House some examples of why it is worth suffering Hamlet's
	"slings and arrows of outrageous fortune".
	The examples are based on real people with real problems in my constituency.
	An elderly man comes to see me, very dignified and very reluctant to approach the MP. He explains that he has never sought the advice of the MP before. So what has happened in the 84 years that he has kept himself to himself and now brings himself to my office? It is a humbling experience simply to sit and meet such people. He is a former miner, one of a generation of south Wales men who, if they were not lucky enough, as some were, to get a scholarship, go away to university and pursue a different profession, spent their lives digging coal out of the rich but complex seams in south Wales.
	In some ways the man has been fortunate in his life, because he has seen many of his friends into the grave. He has sung at too many funerals to remember. Because of a compensation scheme introduced by the present Government, the largest industrial compensation scheme in Europe and possibly in the world, he is able to apply for some payment for the chest disease that is a direct result of his time underground. Eventually he gets the payment. It is not a great amount, but he appreciates it. More importantly, his children and grandchildren will see the benefit of it. Politics has made a difference to that man's life.
	That is not the end, however. The solicitor who handled the compensation case for the former miner—a solicitor based in the south of England, with whom I am very familiar, who has no relationship with coalfield areas and no knowledge of miners, their families or communities—has deducted 15 per cent. of his compensation payment in what, in truly lawyerly fashion, he calls contingency fees. "Contingent on what?", I ask. It is not contingent on any risk to the law firm because the firm is guaranteed its payment under the generous Government compensation scheme. It is contingent on nothing. It is a fabrication of lawyerly words that masks pure unadulterated greed. The Government have already paid the solicitor's fees, regardless of whether that former miner is due compensation or not, but the law firm comes back for more. Not satisfied with a pound of flesh from the taxpayer and the Government, it wants a pound of flesh from the miner himself.
	We battle. The Back Benchers battle. The Government are on our side and enlist the support of the Law Society to tackle those legal vultures. We battle again. The firm resists. We persist. The firm gives in and gives back the money. It is only a few hundred pounds, the price of a good night out for the solicitor and his wife in London. But they will not have it at the expense of my constituent—not at the expense of someone who has dug coal out of the rich seams of the south Wales coalfields. Not for the benefit of that solicitor has he done that, and not for the benefit of that solicitor is he living with chest disease for the rest of his life. So politics matters. Politics makes a difference to our lives.
	When I ran for election in Ogmore, I remember knocking on doors in a council estate in the Ogmore valley. Council housing was one of the great achievements of successive Labour Governments, but we must recognise that despite many good examples, sometimes the quality of that housing or the management of the estates left much to be desired. There have always been council estates where the sense of community and pride in the housing were something to behold. The estate I visited was not one of them.
	Outside a particular flat, grim and depressing, was a battered pram. The door was open and the child had just been lifted out of the pram and taken inside, out of the drizzling rain that had begun to fall. It rained for 30 days during that by-election, I remember.

Chris Bryant: I do, too.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. The alley to the flat was strewn with rubbish and debris, and when the mother came to the door, her face said it all. It bore an expression of misery and despair. How could things get this bad? How could any decent society fail her and her child in that way? There were numerous reasons, but the council had also decided that enough was enough.
	Unable to fund the repairs, renovations and demolitions necessary to renew its housing stock, the council advocated a new way forward—an ideologically challenging way forward for a Labour authority—stock transfer, passing the ownership and management into the hands of the people themselves. It happened. It worked. That mother, whom I subsequently met, and all the residents of that estate and many other estates throughout the borough are now living in smart, high-quality brick-built terraces with their own front and back gardens, and most importantly of all, with a sense of pride in their home and community.
	My message is that in many ways, in many lives, politics makes a difference for the better. The lifting of children, pensioners and low-paid working families out of poverty shows that politics makes a difference. The statements and policies that make neighbourhoods safer places to live in, with better amenities and a better quality of life, are evidence that politics makes a difference. The teaching of civics in schools, the recognition of the role and the rewarding of the voluntary sector, and the direction of lottery funds towards poorer communities, are more evidence that politics makes a difference time and again. The 84-year-old who walks into his MP's office for the first time in his life and asks for help is further proof that politics and politicians can make a difference.
	No hon. Member should ever apologise for the job that he or she does or the importance of politics. Politics is what makes the world go round. It is the grease that oils the engine and it is the engine itself. As such, it is sometimes messy, sometimes dirty, sometimes noisy and confusing.
	Hon. Members may disagree about the direction in which we should travel, but without politics and politicians, there would be no power to drive in that direction. Policy sets the direction, but let us never deride politics because it is the power that can change society for better or worse. Politics is the engine room of our society—let us disagree on direction, but let us agree on the worth of our work.

David Amess: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on his cameo speech, which moved me so much that I shall use it as a defence against attacks from people who do not like politicians—the whole House enjoyed it.
	I want to raise a number of points before the House adjourns for the Whitsun recess. More than 18 months ago, Jackie Cox and other members of The Obesity Awareness and Solutions Trust came to my surgery to discuss obesity. I raised the matter in the Health Committee, where I was delighted to find that I was pushing at an open door. Members of the Committee agreed to an inquiry, the report of which has been published today. The three-volume report on obesity is magnificent, and all 11 members of the Committee are proud of it. We do not intend to allow it to gather dust; we intend to campaign for action. Sadly, a leak occurred during the deliberations on the report—that matter is being dealt with—but I was delighted by the huge media interest at this morning's press conference.
	As far as I am concerned, the bottom line was the Committee's visit to America. In America food is very cheap, and it is practically given away with no regard to fat or sugar content, and with the option to "size up" portions for 30p. We were all shocked by food suppliers' irresponsibility, and that is the problem. As a Conservative, I favour voluntary agreements, but I hope that hon. Members keep raising the issue until food suppliers behave more responsibly and limit temptation.
	TOAST inspired the Health Committee to conduct its inquiry, but its funding has been withdrawn under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. It had tremendous plans to build a centre of excellence, the TOAST house, to run a mobile drop-in centre and to produce the "TOASTbites" journal to help people—mainly ladies—who, despite dieting and other measures, simply cannot lose weight and need help badly. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will do what they can to persuade Ministers to examine TOAST's funding.
	In the Easter Adjournment debate, I raised the subject of crime and praised the Yellow Advertiser for supporting the "more feet on the beat" campaign—in particular I praised the editor, Graeme Allen, and the journalist concerned, Luke Walsh. The newspaper invited readers to submit coupons calling on the Home Secretary to provide sufficient funding for 10 extra police officers to patrol the streets in the Southend police division, and nearly 2,000 coupons have been returned.
	I used to represent another constituency, where I was first elected in 1983 and which had one police station at that time. When I left that constituency it had three police stations, but I seem to have had the reverse effect on my current constituency, Southend, West. When I was elected three police stations were in operation, but one has been closed, another is hardly open and the third is open on a part-time basis.
	The general public pay for the police and they are not happy with the availability of local police stations. For instance, Leigh police station is open on Monday to Saturday mornings and is completely shut on Sundays. Westcliff police station has closed, and Eastwood police station is hardly open. Local residents feel strongly about that campaign and intend to continue campaigning. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons will pass on my comments on police strength in Southend.
	Many hon. Members have raised the issue of mobile phone masts, on which the House appears to be agreed. One week ago, my Telecommunications Masts (Need and Safety Test) Bill achieved an unopposed First Reading. Although little time is left in the Session, it seems to me that the measure can go through on the nod, because everyone agrees that the spread of mobile phone masts is dangerous.
	I praise my local newspaper, the Leigh & Westcliff Times, which, led by Mr. Michael Guy, has campaigned on the issue from an early stage. My Bill places the onus entirely on operators. In future, operators would have to prove the need for a mobile phone mast to local authorities, thus saving local authorities the huge expense of dealing with the matter. The Bill also places the onus on operators to prove to the council committee that there are no health risks.
	I tried to organise a public meeting under the auspices of the Mobile Operators Association. We all know how such organisations enjoy public meetings—they are delighted for MPs to deal with the issues, but they place certain restrictions on the nature of the meeting. I followed all the requirements of the Mobile Operators Association, which eventually wrote to me two days before the meeting, stating that, given the circumstances, it could not attend. Of the five operators that make up that organisation, only two, O2 and Orange, which have 26 million users between them, attended the meeting, where they listened to the general public's concern, with which the House is only too familiar.
	The House legislated to make it unlawful to drive a car and use a mobile phone—like Sir William Stewart, who compiled the Stewart report, I believe that, depending on the thickness of the skull, the excessive use of mobile phones is worrying. Does any hon. Member think that that law is being enforced? It is a complete sham. We have cheered ourselves up with the thought that we have dealt with the matter, but laws do not work unless they are fair and there is good will. It is nonsense to suggest that an army of people are stopping cars because the general public are using their mobile phones. Government figures make it clear that accidents and fatalities have increased as a result of people driving and using mobile phones.
	The hon. Members for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned post offices. Here we go again—every hon. Member, regardless of their party, is upset about post office closures. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you and I were in the House when it voted on Sunday trading, to which I was totally opposed. I knew that, as a consequence of Sunday trading, supermarkets would grow, which has had an impact on our local communities and local stores, and similar arguments relate to post office closures.
	I represent a tiny urban area. The Post Office is marvellous at sending out letters telling us that we will be consulted.
	The Post Office told me that it wanted to consult me and my constituents about the possibility of closing five post offices. We all protested, and the five post offices closed. Last week, by recorded delivery, I got another letter from the Post Office, telling me that it wants to consult me and my constituents about another five post office closures—this in a tiny area where there is a huge number of senior citizens. Out of all 659 constituencies, Southend, West is No. 1 in terms of people aged between 100 and 112. For many of my local residents, post offices and all that they offer are extremely important. I hope that the Government will reflect on that.

Oliver Heald: I agree with my hon. Friend about Sunday trading. Does he agree that the Government have created further problems for post offices by changing the method of benefit payments to phase out the order book and by providing money through the urban reinvention programme that is available only if a post office is closed, not kept going?

David Amess: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Automatic credit transfer has had a huge impact. Having visited all five post offices that are faced with closure—I think that I will be left with only eight or nine in the whole constituency—I am sure that they would reinforce my hon. Friend's point.

Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's preventing the Post Office from providing full banking services, including direct debit discounts on utility bills, is making it less and less viable; and that when a post office closes, people lose not only that post office but the support that it gives to the whole shopping parade, so that the whole area starts to crumble?

David Amess: My hon. Friend and neighbour is entirely right. When I had those conversations in the post offices, I also called in at the parade of shops, where people said exactly the same thing.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman should have learned by now not to listen to the shadow Leader of the House. The truth is that millions of pounds are going to post offices in rural areas to ensure that they stay open. Millions of pounds are also going to post offices that stay open to help them to improve their facilities. Many of my constituents are worried about the facilities that are provided in existing post offices and would like to see, for instance, disabled access.

David Amess: I represent an urban constituency—I make no apology for that—and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is badly affected by what is happening at the moment. I have a high regard for the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services, who was a splendid leader of Newham council, but he has got it wrong on this issue. His hands are probably tied.
	I shall move on to a matter that was raised by a constituent of mine. On 25 October 2000, during an Adjournment debate on the Osteopaths Act 1993, the then Minister for Public Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), promised a thorough investigation into how the General Osteopathic Council was implementing the Act. That might seem to be of little interest to the general public, but many people are very grateful for the help that osteopaths give. My constituent, Frank Waters, has rightly pointed out to me that no such investigation has taken place. Why is that? Why has the Department of Health since obstructed any investigation? Why has it refused to investigate how the General Osteopathic Council has abused in the past, and is abusing at present, the 1993 Act, and the effect of its abuses on trained osteopaths who are registered or not registered with it? Will the Deputy Leader of the House find out the answers to those questions?
	The issue of abortion is rarely raised in the House of Commons these days. I was delighted that three weeks ago a news broadcaster was brave enough to show "The Silent Scream". I hope that it had an effect on those hon. Members who saw it.
	In recent weeks, the abortion issue has returned to the news. I wish to highlight two cases, the first of which involves the courageous action of the Reverend Joanna Jepson, who sought a judicial review of the refusal of West Mercia police to prosecute the doctors involved in a post 24-week gestation abortion for cleft lip and cleft palate. Some of us can remember how we voted on that particular issue when the House was given an opportunity to form an opinion. Thanks to Joanna's persistence, West Mercia police recently announced that they are to set up a new inquiry into this case. However, that should not be the end of the matter. Let us not forget that in the United Kingdom we have some of the most liberal abortion legislation in the world. An abortion can be obtained on the grounds of disability up to term, which is nonsense given that special baby care units can save babies at 22 and a half weeks. Disability rights groups have expressed concerns about the discriminatory impact of our abortion law. I entirely agree with them, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will pass on my comments to the Department of Health.
	The second case is that of Melissa Smith. I hope that all hon. Members were shocked by that case, in which an abortion was arranged for a 14-year-old schoolgirl by a 21-year-old school health worker without the girl's mother's knowledge or consent. That is absolutely outrageous. If ever a case captured the smugness that we have seen for 30 years on this issue, that was it. When Melissa needed an operation for appendicitis, two signatures from her parents were required, but when the abortion was carried out, no opinion was sought from them. Perhaps the saddest comment came from Melissa's boyfriend Dwaine, the father of the aborted child. He told reporters that he and Melissa believed that an abortion was their only choice. What counselling had they received from those marvellous organisations, Brook, Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service? Are they truly independent and non-directional? For many years, the response of successive Governments to the rise in teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections has been more of the same contraceptive-rich, value-free education. Traditional values inside and outside the House are mocked. Melissa's case illustrates the tragic consequences of our irresponsibility. I hope that the Government will act on those matters.
	I hope later to present a petition to the House on behalf of my constituent, Maajid Nawaz. The Foreign Secretary has been very helpful in relation to that case, and has met me, parliamentary colleagues and family members to discuss it. As some hon. Members know, on 25 March this year three men were jailed for five years because it was claimed that they belonged to the Islamic Liberation Movement, which is not a proscribed group. As far as I am concerned, those men are entirely innocent. When the Foreign Secretary met us, he informed us that the Government were waiting for the judge's summation. Will the Deputy Leader of the House use his good offices to find out where we stand? As he knows, we had very little time to make our case to President Mubarak. There is tremendous support in Southend, West and throughout the country for this plea of clemency. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to do everything that he possibly can to ensure that the Government chase up the case to ensure that these men currently detained in Cairo get that which they richly deserve—justice.

Chris Bryant: It is a delight to speak this afternoon after another Welsh Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). I have always been amused by the name of his constituency because when I first typed it into a Word document, the spell-check came up with "Gomorrah".
	I want to concentrate on an issue that my constituents have raised more frequently than any other, although some people might consider it ephemeral and trivial. It is broadcasting. Public service broadcasting is as important to democracy as this House. In this country, we have enjoyed for many decades a public service broadcasting ethos based on independence of thought and journalistic enterprise, and we have enjoyed an independence of journalism for many centuries.
	Public service broadcasting is important not only because it provides an oasis of independence away from commercial pressures, thus enabling better quality television programmes, but because one has only to consider a country such as Spain, where there is a different understanding of public service broadcasting, to realise the dangers than can exist in a democratic system. Last year, the Spanish public service broadcaster, Radio Television Española, produced a series of news programmes in the run-up to the general strike that tried to avoid mentioning it, except to suggest that it would be dangerous to go out on the streets, terrifying to take part and that many violent protesters might be involved. None of that was true. When the trade unions subsequently took the public service broadcaster to a tribunal, it found against the broadcaster, which had to issue a public apology. That was when we began to see the cracks in the edifice of public service broadcasting as state broadcasting in Spain.
	We saw the real evidence on 11 March, following the bombs at Atocha railway station in Madrid. We all know about those tragic events. It is shocking that there is clear evidence that the conservative Government in Spain made a determined effort to try to ensure that the public service broadcaster gave the impression to the people of Spain that the bomb had nothing to do with al-Qaeda or the Spanish Government's support for the war in Iraq but was solely due to ETA. That happened despite the evidence that most of us could probably have adduced from simply noting that 11 March was two and a half years after 11 September. There is clear evidence that the Spanish Prime Minister not only rang major journalists on all the national newspapers but leaned heavily on the public service broadcaster so that no story suggesting that the events were linked to al-Qaeda appeared in the newspapers.
	On the Saturday evening, the night before the general election, the Spanish public service broadcaster devoted a whole evening to the problem of ETA, thereby trying to support the Spanish Government's insistence that the bomb was nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Although the concept of kid-gloves interviewing of Ministers might appear attractive to the Deputy Leader of the House, the way in which such broadcasting in Spain has undermined real democracy, which we all support, is frightening. It is perhaps no surprise that, when the people of Spain felt that the wool was being pulled over their eyes, they turned out in substantial numbers to vote to change the system. It is good news that, despite the temptation to seize the propaganda tool of the Spanish public service broadcaster, the socialist Government in Spain intend to institute reform so that the public service broadcaster is more independent, and run more along the lines of the BBC.
	Independence does not only arise in public service broadcasting. It is well known that Reuters had the whole story on the Thursday afternoon of the attacks and refused to run it because it believed that a conservative Government under the Partido Popular would be re-elected and that it would suffer retribution if it ran the story. It is therefore vital to have a publicly funded, public service broadcaster that understands itself to be not a state broadcaster but a genuinely independent upholder of truth in a democracy.
	It is also important that a public broadcaster is not simply a tiny part of the broadcasting market, as some would like it to be. I do not believe that it should be simply Shakespeare, Schiller and Shostakovich. To use Greg Dyke's term, it should be an 800 lb gorilla. It is important that it is not simply like PBS in the United States of America, which is no more than a pimple on the back of the American broadcasting giants. If we are to ensure that democracy thrives, it should be a hefty body that can create world-breaking television and radio programmes.
	Of course, there are dangers of the BBC being too big, developing a culture of its own and believing in itself so intrinsically that it can never accept that it might occasionally get things wrong. It is interesting that the BBC now employs more staff than the number of British people living in Gibraltar. We therefore need a strong, large and independent public broadcaster that must also be humble.
	I want to focus on some issues that are relevant to Wales. It is commonplace to say that the broadcasting market has changed more rapidly than ever in the past few years and that significant change will happen again. That is nowhere truer than in Wales. The statistics are startling: 54.5 per cent. of homes in Wales have digital television, which is well ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom, for which the figure is 40.5 per cent.; and 68.9 per cent. of people in Wales have multi-channel televisions, which is more than two out of three, as opposed to 54.5 per cent. in the rest of the United Kingdom. Two out of three people in Wales have not only S4C but Channel Four. My constituents have clamoured for that for a long time. The reasons for the more rapid take-up of digital in Wales are obvious. People wanted Channel Four as well as S4C, especially in the English-speaking areas such as my constituency. The topography of Wales makes it difficult to get good reception throughout the country for the basic channels that everyone else takes for granted. The English-based broadcasters are not good at putting rugby on television and we have had to make our own special provision.
	One of the most significant differences between the Welsh broadcasting market and the rest of the United Kingdom is that nearly all the people who have gone digital have done so through satellite. Forty-three per cent. of homes in Wales have digital satellite, only 6 per cent. have digital terrestrial television or freeview, and only 6 per cent. have cable. Again, the reasons are obvious. There is little cable and freeview in Wales. Only 60 per cent. of Wales is covered by freeview, which is not available in my constituency. That is a source of intense irritation, especially when people go to Dixon's or Curry's in Pontypridd, buy their set-top box and hear the shop assistant confidently assert, "All you have to do is plug it in and it will work"—only to find that it does not, because freeview is unavailable in many valleys constituencies.
	People say, "I pay the same licence fee as everybody else. Why can't I get BBC 3, BBC 4, BBC News 24 and even BBC Parliament?" It appears unfair and it is one of the major issues that the BBC will have to tackle in the coming years. I am also worried that four out of five people who have gone digital in Wales have had to do so through Sky. In other words, Rupert Murdoch is being given a virtual monopoly of digital take-up in Wales because we have a lower penetration of cable and digital terrestrial television. That is worrying. No single person should be able to determine which channels are where on people's television sets and be able to hoover up the digital future. We must tackle those issues.
	Enormous challenges arise from all of this, including one for the whole broadcasting ecology. That is a term that people who have worked as lobbyists in the BBC and other organisations love to use, but it has some relevance. There is an enormous temptation in Wales simply to produce lots more local channels and local programmes, and of course that sounds nice. If people talk to their MP about these matters, they will almost certainly say, "Oh yes, we want more local programmes and channels."
	In Wales, however, that means that instead of getting BBC 1, we get BBC 1 Wales. So, providing that I manage to get home to Wales tonight, instead of being able to watch "Question Time" at 10.35—the single most popular news and current events programme in this country, which reaches between 3.5 million and 5 million viewers—I shall have to watch "Dragon's Eye", which is probably one of the least popular news and current events programmes in the country. We do not get "Question Time" until considerably later, when, even though many Welsh viewers might have wanted to watch it, it will be well past their chapel-goers' bedtime.
	We do not get BBC 2 on digital in Wales; we get BBC 2W. That will mean that, tonight, instead of the excellent "One Day of War" which BBC 2 is showing—a programme about war all around the world, which has had loads of publicity throughout the country—we shall get "Sara Edwards' County Set", whatever that may be, followed by "Ivor the Engine"—[Interruption.] I can see that I have lost the argument; everyone would obviously prefer to see "Ivor the Engine".

Oliver Heald: rose—

Chris Bryant: I give way to the fat controller himself.

Oliver Heald: Actually, I think that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has that responsibility.
	Programmes such as "Ivor the Engine" and others that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are very popular. Why should his taste take precedence? Certainly, when I visited the National Assembly for Wales recently, there was great enthusiasm for programmes with a particular Welsh content.

Chris Bryant: It would be difficult to argue that "Sara Edwards' County Set" was the most popular programme, or, for that matter, that "Dragon's Eye" would be more popular in Wales than "Question Time". It would certainly not be right for me to inflict my taste on everybody in Wales. However, I suspect that Wales would be better off trying to be more ambitious about the programmes that it makes, instead of adopting a policy of putting a leek and a daffodil into every television programme shown there.
	I recently went to the BAFTA Cymru awards in Cardiff, and I was hard-pressed to see a single programme that won an award that night that had been shown anywhere other than in Wales. That is a problem. It has not always been the case, however. When the Culture, Media and Sport Committee went to the United States of America a couple of years ago, I was delighted to see, on our return flight, that two of the films that we were offered had been filmed in the Rhondda: "Very Annie Mary" and "Solomon and Gaenor", which are both excellent films. The truth is, however, that the tendency at the moment is for the BBC to invest too much in too many small programmes—partly because it has a great deal of money from the licence fee settlement, much of which has been devolved to the regions, which is great in itself—and the danger is that, instead of broadcasters enabling us to see a wider world, we are being made more insular and inward-looking. That will be a problem for us, culturally, in Wales.
	It was nice to see that the latest BBC bodice-ripper, "He Knew He Was Right", was a BBC Wales production, but I could not see any Welsh talent, Welsh scenes or Welsh writers on the programme. Yet we have significant Welsh talent—we always have had—in the form of actors and singers, for example. I do not need to go through the list, but an example would be Sir Stanley Baker—he was from my constituency—who was one of the great actors and who appeared in "Zulu" among many other films. We ought to be ensuring that our broadcasters in Wales attract an international audience for all that great talent, rather than just a home-grown one.
	A specific challenge faces S4C, the Welsh language channel. Its audience figures for the last few years show that, in 2000, it had a 7.7 per cent. share of the viewers in Wales. In 2001, it had 6.3 per cent., and in 2002, 5.2 per cent., which means that it lost one third of its audience in only two years. S4C therefore finds itself on the edge of a precipice. Even its reach—illustrated by the number of people who turn to it for at least 10 minutes a week—has fallen from 65 per cent. to 48 per cent. It is now reaching an audience of about the same level as that of Channel 5, despite the fact that 30 per cent. of homes in Wales cannot get Channel 5 at all, and that every home can get S4C.
	S4C therefore faces a real problem of audience figures, which brings with it a problem of money. Two years ago, 200,000 people in Wales watched "Big Brother" on S4C. S4C broadcasts not only Welsh language programmes; it carries 36 hours of such programmes a week and about 10 hours of English language programmes such as "Big Brother", along with "Friends" and some of the other American imports. Last year, however, only 100,000 people watched "Big Brother" on S4C—the figure had halved. That is not because fewer people in Wales watched "Big Brother", but because people can now watch it on Channel 4.
	That causes a financial problem for S4C. Selling the advertising time around the programme provided a lucrative market, because 200,000 people were watching it, but that market has now greatly diminished, because the audience has halved. As we go into a digital future, in which everyone in Wales has Channel 4 and S4C, it is likely that S4C will lose those programmes and the money that it was getting from selling the advertising time around them.
	The Tories did not help S4C either. The Broadcasting Act 1990 set the amount of money that the channel would receive each year at 3.2 per cent. of national television advertising revenue. In 1996, however, they let S4C down by changing the formula to one in which the 1997 grant would increase each year in line with inflation. If we had stuck with the old formula of 3.2 per cent. of advertising income, S4C would have received £84.1 million in 2002. However, because of the Tory funding system, it got only £81.4 million, despite the fact that 2002 experienced one of the greatest recessions in television advertising revenue.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman might not have noticed—although most people have—that since 1997 Labour has been in power. If the formula is as wrong as he suggests, why is he not leading a campaign against it and doing something to change it? It has nothing to do with the Conservatives.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman might not have realised that that is exactly what I am doing by making this speech. The formula for S4C does need to be changed, and the Government are instituting—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is wittering from a sedentary position, but the truth is that the Government have instituted a review of S4C, although there has not been a debate about it in the Chamber. I am trying to contribute to the debate. 
	S4C, in its digital future, will have to discover a new identity. It will no longer be good enough simply to be a channel for Welsh-speaking Wales. It needs to rediscover an identity for the whole of Wales, including my Rhondda constituency, and not just by putting subtitles on Welsh language programmes. One of the questions that a young person asked me the other day was, "Why is it that all the bands on S4C are Welsh-speaking bands? Why don't the music programmes have a Welsh-speaking band followed by an English-speaking band?"

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my hon. Friend share my frustration with S4C that, despite the many good things that it does, its excellent political programmes are singular exceptions in failing to be subtitled in English? Many of my constituents who would want to enter the political debate cannot engage with it on S4C.

Chris Bryant: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the most scurrilous elements is that sometimes we find out that what the Plaid Cymru politician has said on a Welsh language programme is not exactly what he said on an English language programme. Without the subtitling, those such as me who do not have any Welsh find it difficult to know what is going on. Equally importantly, I do not understand why S4C is quite happy to interview French politicians in French, with subtitling or translation, but is not prepared to have its own Welsh English-speaking politicians, artists or dramatists appearing on the programme.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will my hon. Friend also note that S4C is more than willing to interview English-speaking Welsh athletes and rugby stars on its sports programmes, because it feels that they have something important to contribute, whereas English-speaking politicians cannot get a foothold?

Chris Bryant: Absolutely, although this is starting to sound a little self-serving, so I cannot pursue the argument much further.
	Of course, it is only right and proper that we should have a hefty Welsh-medium public service broadcaster, not only because the people of Wales for whom Welsh is their first maternal tongue deserve to be able to pursue their political, democratic and cultural life in their own language, but because Wales's growing bilingualism is an important contribution to a stronger society. I want S4C to play a role in encouraging that bilingualism, and not just encouraging Welsh.
	I should not delay the House for many more minutes, but there are some challenges for other broadcasters, particularly Channel 4, which has an enormous audience in Wales and should recognise that. Channel 4 should have more of a Welsh remit. For instance, it should be able to interview people in Wales, whereas at the moment it has no provision to do so. The quota for programmes that must be made by Channel 4 outside the M25 is 30 per cent., but only 1 per cent. of those programmes are ever made in Wales. That should rise to 2 per cent., and I hope that Channel 4 will work closely with the independent sector, such as Pop Factory in my constituency, or Boomerang TV, to try to encourage more programming in Wales that gets on to network television via Channel 4.
	There are also challenges for BBC Wales. Most importantly, it must get more good, strong Welsh programming on to the network. It is not good enough that Scotland has "Monarch of the Glen", and Northern Ireland has "Ballykissangel", but Wales has remarkably few programmes that manage to get on to network television. BBC Wales also needs to be much more engaged with the independent sector in Wales. It needs to promote more of a commercial sense in Wales of what it is trying to achieve.
	We also need a decent BBC Wales website. It is outrageous that at the moment one cannot find out from the BBC Wales website who is contesting which seat in the local elections on 10 June. If a public service broadcaster has a role to play, surely it must make sure that everybody knows when elections are and who is standing.
	Above all, BBC Wales must show all of Wales—not just Pontcanna, Cardiff, Swansea or Newport. It must show the valleys, but not in the stereotypical way such as when there is a drug-related problem or an antisocial behaviour order problem. It must show the fullness of Wales.
	There are, of course, challenges for the Government. Everybody in Wales needs a free-to-air option in the digital era. We cannot hand it over to Sky. We need to make sure that the electronic programme guide enables viewers in Wales to find the channels that they want rather than the ones that Sky wants them to find. Above all, digital switchover should happen first in Wales, because we have made the biggest progress towards digital take-up anywhere in the world.

Bob Spink: May I start this debate where I left off in the Easter Adjournment debate on 1 April—on the subject of hospice funding? It is a most important issue, which the Government have yet to grasp.
	On average, adult hospices in this country receive about 20 per cent. of their funding from the Government—the figure might be a little less—and children's hospices receive a miserly 5 per cent., which is simply too low. The Conservative party has a policy of funding both adult and children's hospices at 40 per cent.
	I congratulate my Front Benchers on their foresight, and hope that they will stick with that policy when we win the next election—and the policy is yet another reason why we should and will win it.
	Even the figure of 5 per cent. is generous compared with the 1.5 per cent. that Little Haven children's hospice in my constituency receives from the Government. That is far too little, and I implore the Minister to convey the message to the Department of Health that it should lobby heavily the strategic health authority and the primary care trust that provide the hospice with its funds, to ensure that it receives at least the average received by other children's hospices.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Bob Spink: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I should point out that in his speech he forgot to mention the great contribution to Welsh culture made by Max Boyce through Treorchy working men's club at the top of his valley. I hope that he will redress that oversight.
	I congratulate all who work in the hospice movement, particularly the volunteers who do so much to raise funds across the country. Those in Castle Point have to work harder than volunteers in any other constituency, because they have to raise 98.5 per cent. of the funds for their hospice.

Chris Bryant: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the hospice movement, but he seemed rather nervous about the possibility that, come the general election, his Front Benchers would change their policy. Is that because he is not sure whether the spending cuts might fall on hospices?

Bob Spink: I am not at all nervous about the level of spending that we shall see in the NHS. I think that after the Conservatives have won the next election we shall see a more focused and efficient approach to health provision, particularly in the hospice movement.

Angela Browning: I agree with my hon. Friend about children's hospices. He will recall that in the last Conservative manifesto we pledged to increase funds for them, and we will do so again.

Bob Spink: That is one of my reasons for being a Conservative.
	The issue of post offices has been covered extensively today, and I shall not repeat the arguments. I presented two petitions last night opposing the closure of two post offices in my constituency, and—with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I shall present another opposing the closure of a third. I congratulate Castle Point councillors on doing such good community work in fighting for their post offices.
	This morning I received a letter dated 25 May from Rev. Michael Galloway, vicar of St. Mary's church. He begins:
	"Not an Epistle from one of your usual nutters".
	I part company with him there, because I do not have any nutters in Castle Point. I have only courteous, kind people who, admittedly, write to me in great volume. That, however, is the only aspect of his letter on which I part company with him. Let me proceed to the serious point that he makes:
	"I am most concerned over the proposed closure of our local Post Office situated at 18A High Road, South Benfleet. To give an example of just one hardship among very many, one of my elderly parishioners with a limited income, and one who has recently had both hips replaced, collects her pension from the above branch. If she were forced to go to Hope's Green, this would entail a bus journey with all its attendant difficulties, or the expense of a taxi. Will you please make every effort to help the community to keep these operating?"
	That puts it more eloquently than I could, so I will leave it at that.
	I am sure that the Government are getting the message. The closure of 3,000 post offices is the result of Government policies on the payment of benefits and pensions and their decision to prevent the Post Office from running full bank accounts. They are financially supporting the closure of post offices, but not the post offices remaining open. Those policies are not being well received in our communities, and post offices are very much part of the fabric of our communities.
	It is important to fight the modernisation philistines who threaten to make changes in the Palace without proper consultation, particularly in Westminster Hall, where the proposal is to introduce a glass compartment and to change lighting levels. Those changes will affect our heritage negatively. The modernisation philistines say that the proposals may cost £5 million or a bit more. I do not know of any other organisation that would be allowed to go ahead with multi-million pound proposals without properly and rigorously costing them.
	There are many reasons why I resist those proposals—in particular, the fact that they have not been subject to proper consultation, not least through the House, although I have spoken twice in the House on the issue, as the Minister knows.
	I represent a wonderful area in south Essex. Castle Point has some remarkable heritage. We have Hadleigh castle, the St. Mary's conservation area, the Canvey Island Dutch cottages and the beautiful ancient church of St. James in Hadleigh. One of the buildings in Castle Point that is well worth preserving is the much loved Canvey Island heritage centre, a key landmark building in my constituency. Sadly, its outside structure needs significant work to ensure its preservation.
	I shamelessly congratulate the excellent Heritage Lottery Fund on its work. Its employees are all dedicated and I hope that they will continue to receive good support from the Government, which they are receiving now—I congratulate the Government on that—so that they can continue their excellent work, not least by supporting the Canvey Island heritage centre, which is well worth preserving. I will meet representatives of the Heritage Lottery Fund there in a few days. I hope that it will help to preserve that important building.
	I congratulate the Heritage Lottery Fund on preserving more than just buildings—it is aiming to preserve memories and culture. The way to preserve culture is to preserve memories and local knowledge. I am delighted with the Heritage Lottery Fund's involvement in a project to preserve the memories and history of the 1953 flood that swept across the south-east coastline, costing many lives, not least on Canvey Island in my constituency, where more than 50 lives were lost. I congratulate the Heritage Lottery Fund on preserving the history and memory of that event.
	The Health and Safety Executive also does excellent work. It seeks to reduce accidents and is currently targeting major causes of accidents, including falls from height. New regulations on working at height that flow from EU directives will be coming through.
	Where access is needed via an opening at height—for example, on a building site where lift shafts are being provided—the openings are a source of risk. Sadly, they have been a source of many accidents, including some fatal accidents; there was one this year. Traditionally, Heath Robinson lash-ups have been used to protect these accesses and block them off. Those have obvious disadvantages. For example, they do not allow access to be gained and resealed professionally. What is needed is a safe, professional, reliable, flexible and low-cost means of making the openings at height safe while retaining controlled access where necessary.
	I am pleased to congratulate a company in my constituency that has now developed such a contraption, the Fallgate system. Obviously, I have no pecuniary interest in that whatever. My only interest is in giving our dangerous building industry a reliable system that safely secures openings at height, thereby stopping unnecessary serious accidents—and, by the way, promoting employment in my constituency in the process.
	I turn to c2c, which runs trains from Southend to Fenchurch Street that serve Benfleet in my constituency. It plans to remove from service five four-coach 357 train sets in September. That will move us down from 12-carriage to eight-carriage trains. When those trains arrive at Benfleet station, they are often full, and my constituents get a poor deal because they have to stand. There is overcrowding, which leads to a lack of safety. If those trains are moved in September, there will be less flexibility to replace a train set that is broken down, so train sets will have to be used more. Therefore, there will be less reliability and less flexibility, and cancellations will probably increase. The long-suffering passengers, who often even today, with the 12-carriage trains, have to stand and endure overcrowding for the 40-minute journey into London, will suffer even more.
	That is happening at a time when the Government's policy, absolutely rightly, is to attract more people on to the trains and off the road. I therefore do not see the sense in the move. I know that the Government are not making the decision, but I hope that they will speak to the various authorities and put pressure on c2c to ensure that those trains continue to run on the Fenchurch Street line. We should not be cutting capacity on that line but increasing it by extending the use of longer trains and by extending train platforms. That would make environmental and economic sense for our country.
	I turn to a more happy subject, because I do not want my speech to sound like a bit of a rant. I want to be balanced and reasonable, because there is far too much yah-boo in politics today. Let me offer a word of praise and thanks to our excellent, dedicated and often undervalued teachers and school staff and to national health service staff at all levels, whether nurses, cleaners, doctors or even managers—they, too, deserve this praise. I also praise police officers, who are often under-resourced and hard-worked, and who are suffering from more and more bureaucracy, and the hard-pressed council workers and the councillors themselves. Those people often work for lower pay than they could command elsewhere, and do so from a sense of vocation. They deserve more help and support from us politicians. They deserve more understanding of their lot, and they need us to get off their backs and let them do their jobs without the dead hand of bureaucracy and regulation that is being pressed on them more and more by this control-freakish, centralising Labour Government.
	Now back to the yah-boo. My next section is extremely justified in the circumstances. I want to address the scourge of street crime and yob culture, which now seems to be a growing plague in society. I was astounded by the bare-faced audacity of the Prime Minister. His brass neck beggars belief. The Daily Mirror—yes, I still read the Daily Mirror—last Friday reported the Prime Minister's speech to the drinks industry in London. He said:
	"There's a clear and growing problem on our town and city centre streets on Friday and Saturday nights—and other nights too."
	The Prime Minister, of course, wants the police to make full use of their new powers, and said so. He went on to say:
	"New powers are there—they need to be used. As a society we have to make sure this form of what we often call binge drinking doesn't become a new sort of British disease."
	I spoke of the Prime Minister's "audacity" because it was he who, through the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, removed from the police the power to confiscate unopened cans and bottles of alcohol from the kids on our streets, who were consuming it and causing this nuisance. He seems to have a very scanty memory. I acknowledge that, following my private Member's Bill of last year, which drew attention to this issue and forced the Government into another embarrassing U-turn, they gave those powers back to the police through the Licensing Act 2003. They did so as a result of pressure from Conservatives—and, admittedly, from the Liberal Democrats—and from the police themselves.

Phil Woolas: I cannot allow my Prime Minister to be attacked in that way without leaping to his defence. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point and we all share the objective of stopping binge drinking. I acknowledge his efforts in that regard, but it was a court judgment on the interpretation of the power to confiscate alcohol on the streets that exposed the loophole, which we were then happy to close.

Bob Spink: I am grateful for that explanation but, whatever explanation the hon. Gentleman gives, it was this Government who had removed from the police the power to control underage drinking on the streets.

John Cryer: rose—

Paul Burstow: rose—

Oliver Heald: rose—

Bob Spink: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald).

Oliver Heald: In fact, we pointed out in Committee on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill—on which I led for the Opposition—what the effect would be at the time when the power was changed. The Minister in question disagreed, but the Government were forced into a subsequent retreat.

Bob Spink: I think that I have made my point, so I shall move on to overdevelopment, which is another scourge and a real issue in the south-east. Our green and pleasant constituencies are being ever more threatened and concreted over. Such overdevelopment is particularly damaging when it is linked, as it always seems to be, to a total lack of provision of suitable supporting infrastructure. That puts the existing infrastructure, which is already under stress, under even greater stress, and it damages our constituents' quality of life.
	I continue to resist all major new development proposals for Castle Point because that is the rational and correct thing to do, given the circumstances. Castle Point has a target of building another 2,400 homes in the next few years. The planning period is more than half way through, yet only 700 to 900 homes—not even half—have been identified and built. But in recent weeks, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has forced the target up from 2,400 to 4,000. That is simply not sustainable, and there is not even a hint of any new supporting infrastructure.
	Canvey Island must get its additional access route and the A13 congestion problems must be solved before we go down this route, which would devastate our communities. The East of England Development Agency and those in charge of the Thames gateway are part of the problem. They could and should be good for our communities, but they seem intent on pushing for more and more development without the necessary infrastructure. However, it is not too late. I call on the Government to change the emphasis and to make sure that we establish the infrastructure before, or at least at the same time as, such development takes place. This is an extremely important issue for our constituents' quality of life.
	I end on a very happy note. I want to put on the record the tremendous civic pride that the people of Castle Point rightly have in the achievement of Canvey Island FC, who this year gained promotion to the Conference and who reached last Sunday's final of the FA trophy. We lost to Hednesford Town, and to put it in colloquial terms, "We was robbed and the referee was blind." In fact, the referee was quite good.
	We still had a most wonderful season. The club has strong community links and supports its youth teams well on Canvey Island. It is a source of great pride and joy to the whole community. The club has brought the community together, and I congratulate the players, the staff and the manager, Jeff King. Most of all, I congratulate the supporters who, along with me, Saturday after cold, wet Saturday afternoon go to all the ordinary games as well as the cup final.

John Cryer: Following on from earlier speeches about post office closures, I want to mention—as I have mentioned on two previous occasions—that in my constituency four post offices face the threat of closure. The argument that is being used, as it probably is with regard to post offices in all constituencies, is that the business levels have fallen to such a point that the post office is no longer sustainable. That is in many cases an accurate argument, although not in all cases. The Government have to bear responsibility for the fact that the reason why business levels have fallen so low is that there has been a massive shift to direct payments into bank accounts. That has happened because of encouragement by the Govt.
	Senior post office managers have told me that it has been made clear to them that when three options for the payment of benefits or pensions are publicised, the post office option always has to be No. 3. It is usually put in pretty obscure terms at the bottom or the back of the publication. Hence the levels of business drop and for obvious reasons post office closures come along. It is often pensioners who are at the receiving end of that, certainly in my constituency. I have a high proportion of pensioners in my constituency—they are the ones who use post offices and who tend to suffer when they close.
	It is not good enough for Ministers to say that this is an operational matter for the board of Royal Mail or for regional Post Office managers. The Government are the 100 per cent. shareholder in the Post Office and Royal Mail, and they bear responsibility, at least to some extent, for what has happened.
	I wish to raise a couple of other issues. The first is steel prices, which have received a lot of attention, especially in the financial pages of the press, during the past few weeks. The rise in steel prices is clearly causing problems for many businesses. In Rainham, in the south of my constituency by the river Thames, there are a lot of small firms, particularly engineering, light engineering and building firms. The rise in steel prices is starting to have a serious impact on their effectiveness and ability to compete and continue to do business. That comes after enormous rises, especially in professional indemnity insurance premiums. Often 9/11 is used as an excuse. In the past couple of years, we have seen premiums for small and medium businesses go through the roof. However, 9/11 is not a reason. It is an excuse for an insurance industry that is engaging in profiteering. Some small and medium businesses have gone under because the insurance industry has decided to take advantage of the general insurance and economic climate to increase premiums.
	Next door to my constituency, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas), is the massive Ford plant, which is still a considerable works and employs about 5,000 people. It surely has to be a matter of time before the rise in steel prices starts to have an effect on even the big trans-national companies such as Ford, which operate on a massive global scale. I probably have about 400 or 500 constituents who work at Ford Dagenham even today.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) mentioned antisocial behaviour issues. Such issues have probably started to face all of us in our constituencies during the past few years. It certainly has in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman did not mention the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which is providing the police with some of the tools that they need to tackle the problem.
	In particular, I have seen recently that the British Transport police—along with my local authority, Havering, and the local police force—is applying for a dispersal order for the eastern end of the District line, which runs up to Upminister and goes through three stations in my constituency. That line has been the victim of antisocial behaviour, some of which verges on criminal damage. That behaviour is obviously frightening for a lot of passengers travelling home late at night, and I have regularly seen it, too. There have been previous attempts to tackle the problem, and although the phrase "dispersal notice" has an unfortunate ring, as it sounds like something that would be used during wartime, the application of those notices should have the kind of effect that we all want—I certainly do, as I often travel back late at night.
	The final local issue that I want to raise relates to St. George's hospital in my constituency. It was the hospital that served RAF Hornchurch, which has now gone, although it covered a large area of my constituency until 1963 and was part of the ring of steel during the second world war. Probably all the greatest fighter aces of the second world war flew from RAF Hornchurch at one time or another, and a lot of injured pilots ended up being treated at St. George's hospital.
	St. George's hospital comes under the aegis of the local primary care trust. There are several options for its future because it requires a lot of investment. Unfortunately, one of the options is closure, which is unacceptable to me—and I know that it is unacceptable to the vast majority of my constituents, as I have talked to and communicated with a large number of them. If the hospital closed, the facilities would be moved to Harold Wood hospital, which is a long way from my constituency, especially the southern part around Rainham and Elm Park. A lot of elderly people, who have similarly elderly relatives in St. George's hospital, particularly recovering from strokes and other illnesses, would have to travel, perhaps using two or three buses, to Harold Wood hospital and back again. That journey would take all day and it would be impractical for elderly people who live in Rainham and similar areas. Some sort of health facility must be maintained on the St. George's site, partly for historical reasons, but principally because we need a health facility for the elderly people who live in the south of the borough.
	Lastly, I want to touch on an issue that hon. Members raised earlier: voter participation in the democratic process. The idea seems to be put around these days that if we modernise Parliament—I put that phrase in quotation marks—somehow voter turnout would magically rocket. The Liberal Democrats, in particular, latch on to that idea. We could change the language and procedures used in the House. We could even flatten it and build some modernist structure in steel and glass.

Chris Bryant: That is a good idea.

John Cryer: I thank my hon. Friend.
	If we were to do all that, it would not affect voter turnout one iota. That is not what affects people's voting intentions and patterns. Two factors among many have affected voter turnout, causing it to drop through the floor in the past 20 years, particularly at general elections. I get the impression that people have a feeling that they no longer have the power to shape their own destiny. There is an inaccurate but widespread feeling that they no longer have the power to shape the future. That is part of a process that has led to the alienation of the democratic process from the voters. Without any shadow of a doubt, one key factor in that is the European Union's role, and supporters of the euro and the European constitution, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), have to face up to that.
	The idea that power will not leach away to Brussels if we adopt the euro and sign up to the European constitution is nonsensical. The argument is whether we agree to power being handed over to undemocratic institutions. The reason why I oppose the euro and everything that goes with it, such as the growth and stability pact, is that it is about taking power from democratic, elected institutions and handing it over to institutions that are unelected, unaccountable and undemocratic. We have no control over those institutions.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend will be surprised to know that I do not think that he is quite right. What makes people wonder whether our parliamentary system is right is when five votes in this Chamber provide enormous majorities in favour of a complete ban on fox hunting while the Chamber at the other end of the Corridor fails to go through the proper processes, or actively obstructs the processes, and overturns that decision. In those circumstances people think, "Hang on; who's in charge?"

John Cryer: That is a fair comment, which is surprising because I thought that I was going to get a load of drivel about the European Union. I congratulate my hon. Friend on that.
	On my rather more important point, if we enter the euro, we transfer power over interest rates to an unelected group of people who sit around in a boardroom in Frankfurt. If we go further down that path, we will have to hand over some of our power to set the rate of taxation. That would be inevitable for two reasons. First, a common currency cannot exist, and has never existed, without a central tax-gathering mechanism. Secondly, it is necessary to have the economic clout that goes with a single currency. That was highlighted by the MacDougall report in 1974, which predicted everything that is happening, such as cuts in regional funding. In addition, the Maastricht treaty, the basis for the single currency, makes it clear that the European Central Bank will have power over taxation.
	If we go down that path, in 10 or 15 years time—perhaps longer—all parties, whether Labour, Conservative or the Liberal Democrats, will be in the position of saying to people, "We want your vote not because we can change things fundamentally, because we can't; we've handed over all the power to Brussels and the European Central Bank. We can't do anything about the public spending crisis or the economic crisis because we can only fiddle about at the margins." People's reaction to that will be, "Well, stuff the mainstream. We'll move to the fringes—the British National party and the extremists." That will be the consequence of going down the path for which many argue.
	I will always resist that. I am not a nationalist or a flag-waving little Englander, but I oppose the euro and the constitution because we must keep decision-making powers in democratic hands and make decisions for ourselves.

Alan Reid: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise several issues that concern my constituents.
	I have received a large postbag on Iraq. I voted against going to war. However, since Britain and America took part in the invasion, we have a legal and moral responsibility to keep the peace and maintain law and order until we hand over power to an elected Iraqi Government. We must also assist in Iraq's reconstruction.
	I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State for Defence say in his statement that the extra troops for the British-controlled zone will not be sent to the American-controlled area. If British commanders on the ground say, as they have done, that extra troops are needed to carry out our existing legal obligations in our sector, the Government should accede to the request, as they have done, and send more troops. However, I should not like British troops to be under the control of American commanders and used to further the American strategy in the American zone because their strategy is totally wrong. It is far too heavy-handed and therefore counterproductive.
	I am also worried about the apparent contradiction between the views of the British and American Governments on the situation after 30 June. Our Government's position appears to be that the final political control of coalition forces after the power transfer will rest with the new Iraqi Government. The American Government seem to take a different view, however. Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, said that US forces will only take account of what the Iraqi Government say at a political level.
	The anomaly between the British and American views on the control of coalition forces after the handover has to be cleared up. If we have British and American forces operating under different conditions that could be a recipe for disaster, and the practical consequences on the ground could lead to a great many operational difficulties.
	I come now to Europe. Having voted twice in the Division Lobbies in favour of a referendum on the proposed European constitution, and having been on the losing side on both occasions, I was delighted by the Government's U-turn and to hear that, after all, there will be a referendum. That is, of course, provided that agreement is reached on the constitution and that it is not derailed by other countries voting no before we have the referendum in Britain. I believe that a constitution is necessary to enable a Europe of 26 countries to function, but it is important that it is endorsed by the British people in a referendum. However, I would like to see a greater commitment to subsidiarity in the constitution. Europe, while needing a constitution, is certainly far too centralised, which is why people in Britain are turning more and more against it, and there is a risk that the referendum will be lost. I hope that the final draft of the constitution will contain a greater commitment to subsidiarity.
	I want to refer to areas where I believe that subsidiarity is important. The first is fishing, an industry of great importance in my constituency. It is clear that the European common fisheries policy has failed, but we need such a policy because fish swim across the boundaries of countries' territorial waters. It would clearly be ridiculous if, as soon as fish swam outside the territorial waters of a country with a policy of conservation, they swam into those of a country with a policy of scooping up everything in sight—the first country's conservation policy would be pointless. We need a common fisheries policy, but not one that is run by national Governments.

John Wilkinson: Why is the hon. Gentleman against the United Kingdom asserting control over its own fisheries up to a 200-mile limit or, where there are nearby EU states, up to the median line? Is it not the case that Norway and Iceland have conserved their fish stocks exceedingly well, and that has been to the benefit of all concerned in the north-west Atlantic?

Alan Reid: I simply say that there is little point in one country having control up to the median line if the country on the other side of the line has a totally different policy. Fish swim the seas; they do not stick to one country's territorial waters.

John Cryer: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in 1972, when Britain applied to join what was then the common market, Norway also applied. Norway withdrew its application because the CFP was rushed through at the last minute, and Norway still has a powerful fishing fleet, whereas we have a fleet that has been decimated because of the CFP.

Alan Reid: Norway enters into negotiations with the EU for agreements on fishing because even the Norwegians recognise that what the EU does in its own sector impacts on the Norwegian sector.

Bob Spink: Is it not a fact that while conservation of fish under Norway's national control has been pretty good, conservation of fish under the CFP has been absolutely disastrous? Would it not be better to level up by taking our own national control, rather than staying levelled down under the CFP?

Alan Reid: I agree with part of what the hon. Gentleman said: the present fisheries policy has failed, as I said. We need a policy that is managed by regional management committees, composed of fishermen, scientists and Government representatives, which would have control over a particular zone of the sea. The zones in which fish swim do not conform to national territorial boundaries.
	The European Union has already divided the seas around Europe into different zones. Subsidiarity should not just mean giving power to nation states or devolved Governments within those states. In fishing, for example, it could be best implemented by giving power to organisations based on zones of the sea. Some zones may be under the control of one country, but others such as the North sea would need to be under the control of a management committee consisting of representatives of countries with historic fishing rights in the North sea. The annual last-minute Council of Ministers compromise, however, is not working, as landlocked countries have exactly the same voting rights as countries with a large fishing industry. Subsidiarity in fishing should mean devolving power to regional management committees so that they can manage zones of the sea.
	The European working time directive is clearly causing problems for the health service in rural areas, including the ambulance service in my constituency. We would all support the principle that workers should not be forced to work excessive hours, but the directive has resulted in a court ruling that time spent on call counts towards the 48 hours. It is perfectly reasonable in private industry to create fair competition between all European countries by introducing common rules, but in the health service, which is clearly not in competition with other countries, there is no need for European-imposed rules. The NHS in rural areas will get worse if the Government do not seek a change in the European working time directive so that health service on-call work does not count towards the 48-hour total.
	We need to keep animal diseases out of Britain. The foot and mouth epidemic three years ago cost the country billions of pounds. In view of the huge amount of money that another epidemic would cost the country, the Government should do more to prevent meat from being smuggled into the country illegally. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs estimates that the total amount of illegal meat entering the country every year is 7,431 tonnes. However, in its annual review, the Department notes that in 2002–03, the last year for which figures are available, only 31,000 kg of illegally imported meat were detected. Customs is detecting only a fraction of the meat smuggled into the country. I am sure that the figures for 2003–04 will show an increase in the amounts detected because more resources have been devoted to the problem, but that will only be a fraction of the total.
	In its report, DEFRA notes that the Government are making £6 million available in the financial year 2003–04 to tackle illegal imports, but that is only a fraction of the billions of pounds that another epidemic would cost, so far more resources are required. Customs and Excise has only six sniffer dogs to detect smuggled meat, although four more are being trained. Ten dogs, however, are not enough to cover all the ports and airports in Britain. Insufficient use is being made of X-ray technology, which was trialled last summer. However, when I raised those trials and their results with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), who is responsible for animal welfare, in a debate on illegally imported meat at the end of April, he was not aware of the results.
	I tabled a written question to the Treasury about the problem, and I am pleased that the Government are now using X-ray technology. However, in response to my question about assessment of its effectiveness, I received an unhelpful non-answer:
	"The effectiveness of current equipment is continually assessed."—[Official Report, 25 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 1510W.]
	There is therefore little information about the use of X-ray technology, which is designed to stop criminal activity.
	One of the most important factors in preventing criminal activity is the fear of capture. Criminals will not have much fear of getting caught when there are only 10 sniffer dogs, there is only limited use of X-ray technology and, according to official figures, only a fraction of illegal imports are detected. The Government have to do much more and must publicise more the efforts that they will make to deter illegal imports because that will act as a deterrent to criminals.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) referred to the working at height proposals. Whereas I support what he said about the need for improved regulations for buildings, I am concerned, as is the outdoor activity industry in my constituency, about the way in which the Health and Safety Executive has framed the draft regulations. Any court will interpret them as applying not only to building sites, but to hill climbing and mountaineering. If the draft regulations become law, they would eliminate paid guides working on mountains and hills. Insurance would become impossible because they would have to comply with regulations that in the original European directive were clearly meant for buildings, but which the HSE wording could apply also to mountains.
	One of the most ridiculous proposals is that all edges require edge protection. Under the current wording that would apply to the crags on mountain tops. I have had several letters from the outdoor activity industry in my constituency, which I have submitted, with my support, to the HSE as part of the consultation process. When the draft regulations are reworded after the consultation exercise, I hope that it will be perfectly clear that they apply only to buildings, not to mountains. Otherwise, paid mountain guides will cease to be a viable profession and people will go out on to the hills without paid guides.
	Finally, I come to post offices, an issue which has been raised often enough before. Members have spoken about the effect of Government policy on urban post offices. I am concerned about the impact on rural post offices. The Government propaganda is persuading pensioners to opt for a bank rather than a post office. Clearly, a great deal of business will be lost to post offices, which will inevitably mean rural post office closures in years to come. I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to change their written leaflets and the script of the Government call centre to give an unbiased description of the various payment methods available, so that people can make a fair choice between a post office card account and a bank account.
	I am pleased to have had this opportunity to raise these issues on behalf of my constituents.

Alan Hurst: It is always a pleasure to speak in these debates and not only put forward the views of one's own constituents, but learn so much about other constituencies.
	Today I want to discuss the provision of maternity services in Braintree town, particularly those based at the William Julian Courtauld hospital. The name Courtauld may well be familiar to hon. Members. Braintree was once a mill town of East Anglia and one of the mills belonged to Courtauld's, together with Warners and other manufacturers.
	They were great benefactors, and one of their gifts to the town was a community hospital named the William Julian Courtauld hospital, which the working people of the town supported by subscription and which has served the town since just after the first world war.
	For 80 years or so, the women of Braintree town had been able to give birth in the maternity unit at the William Julian Courtauld hospital. I thought the matter had been secured some seven years ago, when the then health authority, the North Essex health authority, undertook an ironically entitled consultation called "Taking the Initiative". The consultation's aim was simply to close down community hospitals across the part of Essex that I have the privilege to represent. Unsurprisingly, there was a public outcry not only in Braintree, but in other towns that would be affected. Ultimately, the health authority recanted on those proposals and the hospital was secured, along with the maternity unit. That was much to the credit of the people of Braintree, who marched, petitioned and harangued until that was achieved.
	There was good reason why that should have remained the case. In the period after the second world war almost up to the early 1990s, orthodoxy in the health profession stated that, in the main, babies should be born in large general hospitals, and the element of choice for the mother went out of the equation. Hon. Members will be familiar with the work of the Select Committee on Health chaired by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) in the early 1990s, and thereafter the inquiry under Lady Cumberlege, leading to the report, "Changing Childbirth". To summarise, that recommended that the mother should have a choice about where the baby was to be born—in a specialist unit, at home, in a small community hospital or in a more general hospital. William Julian Courtauld hospital is a community hospital with all the friendly backing and support that such a hospital can provide.
	I have often thought about the words of T. S. Eliot, who said that
	"the same time never comes twice in the life of one man".
	Those were wise words, but unfortunately they do not seem to apply entirely to what is happening in Braintree at present. The maternity unit at the Courtauld hospital was temporarily closed last October. The health officials assured me that the closure was due to illness and maternity leave among the midwives and other staff at the hospital. I accepted that, and being a chap who wants to believe everything he is told, I went on local radio to try and assuage any fears that people might have that the closure was a result of a long-term policy.
	Indeed, the hospital has re-opened for maternity services, but it has not re-opened on what is usually called the status quo ante. Before October, the service was midwife-led and the hospital was open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. A mother could go in, stay a whole day or two or three days, and accustom herself and her baby to the situation. As it is now being operated, the maternity hospital is open only five days a week, Monday to Friday, between 9 am and 5 pm.
	Of course, babies are not so well planned, and they sometimes give an indication that they may wish to be born outside the prescribed hours. It is fair to say that provision is made for that, provided the midwife knows that she can go and get a key, open up the hospital and let the mother in so that the baby can be born out of hours. But there is a strict proviso that they must be out of the premises six hours after the birth. Two hours is encouraged, but six hours is the limit of the stay. Perhaps I am a little old-fashioned, but I think that may be taking efficiency and speed of operations a bit too far. The people of Braintree want a proper maternity service provided for the town again, as we had before October last year and for the 80 years preceding that.
	As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the people of Braintree are very reasonable, and they are not given to making harsh judgments if harsh judgments are not required. We have two hospitals in the town: I have mentioned the Courtauld hospital; the other is St. Michael's hospital, which was formerly the workhouse and is now predominantly for older people and for out-patient appointments.
	The proposal, which Braintree people do not oppose, is that the two hospitals should be combined and a new community hospital built. Of the two sites—the Courtauld, which was founded by a benefactor and public subscription, and St. Michael's, which was the workhouse—one would have thought that the public affection would be for the Courtauld hospital, which is true. When the logical case was put to the people of Braintree on the best site for the new community hospital, however, after reflection the overwhelming majority of them, including some of the most active health campaigners, said that they saw the logic of putting it on the less attractive site in terms of human history, but the more realistic site in terms of location. Braintree people are reasonable, and they will listen to a case and accept it, if it is good.
	However, we cannot expect the young mothers of Braintree to accept a nine-to-five hospital with the door on the latch. As the service has been scaled down, numbers have fallen. So far, 24 babies have been delivered at the Courtauld hospital in this calendar year. Last year, 122 babies were delivered, but if one goes back seven years, 350 babies were delivered. One fears that the service is, to use a cliché, withering on the vine, and local people are concerned that, if that process continues, the service will eventually cease to exist.
	Both now and previously, I have heard health officials in Essex say that Braintree has a "Rolls-Royce service", which is a rather heartless phrase, because the ratio of midwives to births is favourable in Braintree and unfavourable in Chelmsford, which is a large town in the centre of Essex a number of miles away from us. If mothers are always encouraged to go to the large hospital with the large unit in Chelmsford, the ratio is bound to become unfavourable. I do not know what kind of Rolls-Royce health officials in Essex have in mind with regard to the service provided at the Courtauld hospital, but it is not what Mr. Rolls or Mr. Royce had in mind when they designed the ultimate luxury vehicle.
	The current service is basic, and I ask my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to convey to his colleagues in the Department of Health the need for them to indicate to local health officials that that state of affairs should not continue. My hon. Friend knows that health officials will blame the Government and say, "The Government do not give us enough money to employ the midwives." If health officials want more money for midwives—there must be a case for it because the local population is growing apace—they should make determined representations to the Department of Health, which others and I would support.
	If policy has been changed in order to centralise all maternity services in a town a considerable number of miles away from us, however, the matter has nothing to do with finance and concerns social engineering, which is contrary to all thinking about childbirth in the past decade or more. I implore the Government to seek to persuade those in charge of maternity services in my area to think again.

Angela Browning: The hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) touched on the difficulties encountered by small and medium-sized businesses in obtaining public liability insurance, and the punitive costs that they face when they want to renew their policies. We have discussed that matter in the House. Indeed, the Chancellor made a commitment that the Treasury would examine how other countries deal with similar problems.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that insurers cite the aftermath of 9/11 as a reason why premiums are increasing. A range of other arguments is also given, including the state of the UK and global stock markets. However, it is clear that when such policies come up for renewal, many people across the spectrum of small businesses find it difficult to obtain cover, which often licenses them to do the trade that they are registered to carry out.
	A further sector of small businesses that is having difficulty because of a sudden and dramatic increase in insurance cover is small independent financial services that require professional indemnity insurance. I have received a lot of correspondence on that from independent financial services providers in my constituency. One provider wrote to me to say that in the past it paid a premium of between £2,000 and £3,000 per annum with a £1,000 claim excess, but that it is now faced with a premium of £100,000 with an excess of £50,000. That represents a huge increase for small businesses, and it is likely to put some out of business and to mean that people will practice without such cover. The problem is hitting a further sector of small businesses on our high streets. The sector includes financial planners and independent financial advisers and, as we know, it has been through a difficult time for a variety of reasons. The situation is likely to affect such businesses' ability to continue to practice, and, of course, Financial Services Authority rules insist on them having professional indemnity insurance.
	Only two insurers in the whole of the UK provide cover for existing IFAs, plus one or two Lloyd's syndicates. New IFAs have no problem getting cover because they have no past book of business, so they can get much more attractive and favourable terms and obtain cover at a reasonable price. It is bizarre and quite wrong that although well-established practices are almost being put out of business, people with no track record who set up new businesses can get cover.
	One of my constituents, Mr. Colin Langton, has practised in the sector for many years. He is well known in the west country and runs practices in both Devon and Cornwall. Indeed, he often writes for our regional newspapers to advise people on financial problems. He has put forward a suggestion that might help the industry. He says that the
	"Industry Compensation Scheme—the FSCS—should be adapted to be the first line of cover for all"
	independent financial advisers. At the moment, the scheme covers those that go into liquidation, which is a good thing, but he believes that it should be enhanced so that IFAs may obtain cover from it. He says that that would mean that small independent financial adviser companies would no longer be held to ransom by the few insurance providers. Given the increasing likelihood of companies operating with no cover or stupid excesses that they could not meet if challenged, they run the risk of going into liquidation or being stopped from trading altogether by the FSA. In either case, the financial services compensation scheme would ultimately pick up the bill, so giving companies the ability to access cover through the scheme would not only help to protect independent financial advisers, but offer greater protection to the general public who use their services. At the moment, businesses might not be covered and their customers would not know it.

Paul Tyler: I entirely endorse the hon. Lady's point, which has been put very seriously by the gentleman to whom she refers. Does she agree that were this to come about, it would provide a form of prevention that is preferable to the inevitable post-something going wrong cure?

Angela Browning: That is exactly right. New legislation is required to enable it to happen. My plea to the Minister, on behalf of small businesses in this sector in my constituency and around the country, is for a piece of legislation—it would surely be very short; a tidying-up exercise if ever there was one—to bring about this necessary protection. An EU directive is pending that might precede any such legislation in this House. It is possible that several of my constituents in this very important sector will go out of business, and I hope that the Government will do all that they can to deal with the problem as quickly as possible.
	My second topic is colleges of further education. I am a great fan of FE colleges, but they are often seen as the Cinderella of the education sector in terms of the lack of recognition that they receive for the huge contribution that they make, and could potentially make, towards education, training and skills. We recently received a delegation to the House of Commons from heads of those colleges who are concerned about a whole range of issues, especially their budgets in the forthcoming year. One head told me that although his overall budget is being increased, because of the change in the formula he is likely to lose most of the part that is allocated to child care, which is very important for adult students wanting to come back into education or to increase their learning and skills.
	Three FE colleges serve my constituency: East Devon college in Tiverton; the nearby college in Exeter, which some of my constituents attend; and Bicton college of agriculture, which is in the constituency of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire). Although that is a traditional agricultural college, it has expanded its curriculum and remit to cover courses based on the leisure and catering industries, and it now has a whole range over and above the core agricultural syllabus. Those colleges have served my constituency very well.
	I am aware, too, of the extremely valuable work done by FE colleges outside my constituency. Most colleges of an average size have links with some 500 firms in their locality. That demonstrates the importance of such links in relation to the skills that are needed by local businesses and industry. On a more basic level, last year colleges helped about 0.3 million adults to improve their basic literacy and numeracy skills. The viability of our FE colleges, particularly those in my constituency, is a matter of great importance and interest to me. I have the privilege of being a patron of an FE college foundation—Bournemouth and Poole, which I attended many years ago.
	It is worth remembering that, nationally, colleges award more than half of all vocational qualifications to some 500,000 individuals a year. An independent mass survey conducted by the Learning and Skills Council found that 93 per cent. of learners were satisfied with their learning experience in an FE college. It is only in recent years that the LSC has had responsibility for funding, inspection and standards in those colleges. I have recently seen its annual report and accounts for the year 2002–03, which produced some rather interesting figures.
	The learning and skills council reported a surplus for 2002–03 of £83 million, yet in the previous year—2001–02—£202 million was clawed back from FE colleges. The budget for FE participation for 16 to 18-year-olds and the 19-plus age group increased by 3.3 per cent., yet the output in colleges greatly exceeded that.
	The FE sector delivers growth of some 4.6 per cent. in the number of students that it teaches and trains, but with a 4.5 per cent. cash increase. Given inflation at 2.5 per cent. and a public sector pay settlement, with inflation of some 4 per cent., colleges have a difficult balancing act to perform. They have grown and committed to increase salaries on a real-terms decrease in their budget. They ask me, not unreasonably, why, when money has been clawed back from them and they have had to manage tight budgets, the LSC-reported surplus of £83 million has to revert to the Treasury. Why cannot they reinvest it in post-16 learning, bearing in mind that much money was clawed back from that sector? They feel sore about that.
	FE colleges have a track record of managing on tight budgets, without real-terms increases. That has continued year after year, yet the way in which the LSC is managed means that the surplus cannot be ploughed back into FE colleges but must be returned to the Treasury. Given the way in which the LSC manages its budget, it is clear that its increase in spending on 16 to 18-year-olds and those who are 19 and older is only 3.3 per cent. However, it increased its budget for capital standards and other similar responsibilities by 38 per cent. One part of the LSC remit has an increased budget of 38 per cent., whereas the sharp-end money for FE colleges increases by only 3.3 per cent. Colleges have done a good job in achieving growth when they have effectively suffered a cut in their budget.
	I draw the matter to the Minister's attention because, now that the LSCs have been in place for a few years, it is time to take another look at the way in which they apportion their budget. They appear to have a lot of money and to have increased their budget not for people learning but for checking up on people learning. That is wrong. I appreciate that LSCs are fairly new and have had to find their way for a year or two, but we should take a closer look at the disparity between the different parts of their budget.
	We should also consider what we want from the FE sector, which can address many problems that we regularly debate in the House. There is no traditional, classroom setting in FE colleges. Courses are relevant to people's everyday lives, whether they are basic numeracy and literacy for adults or specific skills learning for young people who perhaps cannot be contained in a traditional classroom setting. We often debate what we should do with stroppy 14 and 15-year-olds, whom people find difficult to manage in traditional schools.
	The FE sector has quite a lot to offer in that regard. In my constituency, the East Devon college is doing an awful lot with children who have been excluded from the traditional classroom setting.
	Somehow, however, we treat FE as the poor relation when it comes to education budgets and resources. My plea to the Minister, therefore, is that he ask his colleagues at the Department for Education and Skills to take another look at what the head teachers from FE colleges have been saying to them in the last week or two. It is clear that those head teachers have not been listened to in the past, but they should be listened to. We have not yet maximised the FE sector in this country, and a lot more could be done that we, as Members of Parliament, would find made a great difference to the education of our constituents and to the viability of many of the businesses in our constituencies.

Ross Cranston: I shall begin with a specific point concerning Iraq and the operation of our forces there. Although we are what the law regards as an occupying power, our presence there is governed in the main by United Nations Security Council resolutions, notably resolution 1511 of October last year. That situation will change in the near future, but the basic principles involved will remain the same. Paragraph 13 of that resolution determines
	"that the provision of stability and security is essential to the successful completion of the political process as outlined"
	earlier in the resolution. The paragraph goes on to state that the resolution
	"authorizes a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq, including . . . the security of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, the Governing Council of Iraq and other institutions of the Iraqi interim administration, and key humanitarian and economic infrastructure".
	Paragraph 14 goes on to urge member states to contribute to the multinational force, and paragraph 16 emphasises the importance of establishing an effective Iraqi police and security force. In fact, some 30 countries have contributed to the multinational force, although the unified command mentioned in paragraph 13 is provided by the United States.
	I want to draw the attention of the House to two aspects of the security provisions. First, it is obviously contrary to resolution 1511 for any group to threaten
	"the successful completion of the political process"
	set out in the resolution, or to threaten security, particularly that of the United Nations, the governing council and other aspects of the Iraqi interim Administration or of the country's infrastructure. It is therefore unsurprising that when the president of the Iraq governing council was assassinated in Baghdad 10 days ago, Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, strongly condemned the action as a tragic and criminal act. He went on to say that it was
	"a bad day for the people of Iraq and all those striving to help them. In the critical days leading up to the restoration of Iraq's sovereignty on June 30th, it is all the more important for the Iraqi people to resolve peacefully their differences and rally together in a spirit of unity and dialogue to build the foundations of a new Iraq."
	Let us be clear about this. It is lawful for the multinational force and the new Iraqi police and security forces to enforce security. They can take, in the words of the resolution, "all necessary measures" to do so. Conversely, those carrying out attacks on the political institutions recognised in the resolution, on the country's infrastructure and, implicitly, on the multinational force itself are acting unlawfully, whether they are remnants of the previous regime, members of al-Qaeda, other foreign fighters or Iraqis acting from political or religious motives. As Kofi Annan said, they have to resolve their disputes peacefully.
	My second point is that both the multinational force and the Iraqi police and security forces must act in accordance with the law when taking "all necessary measures" to enforce security. For example, the Chair Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention of the UN Commission on Human Rights has raised the issue of detentions in Iraq, saying:
	"According to the information received by the Working Group, the majority of persons in detention in Iraq have been arrested during public demonstrations, at checkpoints and in house raids."
	She went on to say that she was
	"seriously disturbed by the fact that these persons had not been granted access to a court to be able to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, as required by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 9)."
	Although the UK is a party to that covenant, there is an issue as to its direct applicability to this situation. The sentiment that she expressed, however, is surely right: when people are detained their legal status must be clarified quickly, and ultimately they must be able to challenge it.
	The second implication is that the ill treatment and torture of detainees is clearly unlawful, quite apart from the fact that it is both morally repulsive and politically counter-productive. The law here derives from the principles and norms of international human rights law, and in the case of persons entitled to prisoner of war status, the norms and principles of international humanitarian law as enshrined in the Geneva conventions. Yesterday, Amnesty International released its annual report. It detailed specific allegations of torture by British troops of nine men arrested working at a hotel in Basra, where weapons had reportedly been found. According to Amnesty, one of the men died in custody, and a second was admitted to hospital in a critical condition, suffering renal failure and severe bruising.
	My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have given assurances that all allegations of mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners are taken extremely seriously, and that all allegations are investigated thoroughly. I accept those assurances. I am also comforted by the fact that last Friday, the Attorney-General released a statement. He announced his referral to the Crown Prosecution Service of a case of what could be unlawful killing by a soldier in the course of an arrest in Iraq. Charges had been dismissed by the soldier's commanding officer, so there could not be a court martial. The CPS is investigating whether there should be a prosecution under the ordinary criminal law. That demonstrates the integrity of the process. The Army prosecuting authority is independent of the military chain of command, and the Attorney-General is exercising his prosecutorial functions independently of Government. But the integrity of the process still depends on proper procedures and proper investigation by the military police. We still need a clear statement by the Government of what has happened in relation to those cases raised by Amnesty.
	On the media, I do not wish to discuss fake photographs showing abuse by soldiers in Iraq, or fake stories more generally. Distinguished journalists across the ideological spectrum, from Michael Gove to Ian Hargreaves to John Lloyd, are on that case. It is better that journalists attempt Alpheus's work than politicians, especially those like me who are lawyers to boot. I do not wish to discuss privacy, although that is also in the news as a result of the Naomi Campbell case.
	I was struck, however, by an article that appeared earlier this month in The Guardian. It was a report of the Wincott Foundation awards for City journalism, at which Paul Myners, who now chairs the Guardian Media Group, delivered the keynote address. He used it to make a strong attack on the Financial Services Authority. He referred to the Interbrew affair, in which he said that the use of the courts had a "chilling effect" on the press. He went on to say that if newspapers were forced to hand over information that might help to identify whistleblowers and the like, as he said had happened in that case, media organisations risked being perceived as agents of the state. He went on to say:
	"The press has an important role to play in a democracy and it must be seen to be independent of the state and the law enforcement authorities so that it can fulfil the vital role of investigative watchdog".
	The Financial Times report of that event on the same day said that Mr. Myners's speech was applauded by journalists attending the awards, including the editor of the Financial Times, Andrew Gowers, and the editor of the The Times, Robert Thomson.
	The implication of course was that they supported Mr. Myners's remarks.
	In my view, those very distinguished people are misguided on the Interbrew case. Interbrew is a well-known multinational brewer producing well-known brands. The case involved a survey of the market by Interbrew's financial advisers. All multinationals survey the market in the context of possible acquisitions. Interbrew commissioned a report on South African Breweries, which would obviously contain market-sensitive information. An unknown person obtained a copy and doctored it, inserting false information about the time and pricing of a takeover, and passed it to various newspapers.
	When Interbrew was contacted about the report by the media, it denied that there was any specific planned takeover. Interestingly, the French newspaper Le Figaro did not publish in the light of that denial. Our press did—the Financial Times, The Times and The Guardian. A report also appeared on Reuters.
	As would be expected, there was a significant impact on the share price of both Interbrew and South African Breweries. Anyone with any familiarity with the financial markets would have smelt a rat—possibly an unlawful attempt to manipulate the market, or an attempt to harm Interbrew.
	Interbrew applied for disclosure of the documents from the various media outlets, using two legal doctrines: breach of confidence, and something called the Norwich Pharmacal principle, which requires an otherwise innocent party to disclose the identity of a wrongdoer when that information is essential to the commencement of proceedings—in this instance, proceedings against the person who had leaked the doctored report.
	Interbrew was able to show that inspection of the original leaked documents was likely to assist in tracing the leak, and that it had made all reasonable efforts to trace the leak itself. In the first instance, Mr. Justice Lightman ordered the media to hand over the material. The Court of Appeal agreed, and the House of Lords refused to interfere.
	In his leading judgment in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Sedley held that despite the protection for the media in both section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and article 10 of the European convention on human rights, the public interest in protecting the source of the leak was not sufficient to withstand the countervailing public interest in the claimant's seeking justice in the courts against the person who had leaked the documents. That was a very limited decision. Lord Justice Sedley did not pretend to extend the right to the detection of crime. He set out clear principles protective of the media in his judgment. He said that, by virtue of section 10 of the 1981 Act, the press enjoy a high level of protection, not in their own right but in the public interest. In order to redress the balance, the court must find it necessary to do so to meet a pressing social need, not an individual one. He also said that there must be no less invasive alternative, and that production must be a proportionate response.
	The upshot was that despite the court order that the documents should be revealed, the newspapers refused to act. After some time Interbrew, no doubt fed up with the whole matter, walked away. The Financial Services Authority then investigated, and after obstruction it too walked away.
	As I have said, the court took what in my view was a principled and moderate approach, protective of the freedom of the press. This was not a leak motivated by conscience. The source was anonymous. The report was false. It was not an instance of whistleblowing. This was done for profit, or with intention to harm. There was no public interest in the disclosure of these false documents. It was not a case of protecting a source—a source that would dry up. In fact, the source was not legitimate.
	In short, as Will Hutton wrote in The Observer at the time, there was no public interest in the disclosure of the information. The press should have been more careful, as Le Figaro was, in assessing the authenticity of the documents. I quoted Mr. Myners's remarks about the important role of the press in a democratic society and I wholeheartedly endorse those remarks, but I find it impossible to endorse his analysis of the Interbrew case as an example of that particular principle.
	Like many hon. Members, I have constituents who have contributed to occupational pension funds all their working life and have found that, because of the collapse of the sponsoring company, they have nothing. I was comforted by the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that people in that situation would be assisted. Of course, the Pensions Bill will provide protection in future. A lot of the devil is in the detail, but I want to raise a more general point.
	There has been discussion in recent times of how pension funds should perform their functions as owners. It is a trite point that, these days, pension funds own large parts of British industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has said that good business needs activist owners, and that includes pension funds, fund managers and the trustees of those funds. Why is that? Because it will contribute to shareholder value. The notion is that, if one is a good activist owner of companies, over the long term, one is more likely to achieve shareholder value. There are also ethical considerations. If one has activist owners and activist shareholders, the boards will be kept in line, for example, in respect of exorbitant payments to directors.
	So there is evidence that activist owners contribute to shareholder value and to good corporate governance. How is that to be attained? In relation to the relationship between fund managers and companies, one possibility is codes. A number of years ago, Mr. Myners prepared a report for the Government that suggested that the principles of activism should be a legal duty on fund managers. There have been other suggestions that there be a legal obligation on fund managers to vote. No one needs to vote their shares, and it may be a bit difficult to impose a particular legal obligation on fund managers as opposed to other shareholders, but the notion of a code whereby fund managers would become more activist has its attractions. That is recognised, for example, in the Hermes principles.
	In theory, the trustees of the pension fund, who give instructions to fund managers, need to be more vigorous themselves. Mr. Myners developed the Myners principles. Unfortunately, trustees have not signed up to them. Trustees need to be familiar with the issues so that they can give proper instructions to fund managers. Most important, the beneficiaries and fund members themselves—the pensioners or prospective pensioners—need to be more involved in the process. At paragraph 86, the Myners report suggested annual reporting by all funds of compliance with the principles. In other jurisdictions such as Australia, half the trustees have to be elected by members of the fund themselves. Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States has issued a rule whereby there would be public disclosure to fund members of the voting record.
	Another suggestion, by Elaine Sternberg, is that the role of trustees ought to be recast to give them more involvement.
	In all those ways, we could contribute to what American academic Dr. Steve Davis has described as a new civil economy, based on a fundamental change in the behaviour of institutional investors. Trustees have to be on top of the job, and both they and the fund managers have to be more accountable to the beneficiaries—in other words, the fund members or pensioners.

Paul Burstow: I, too, rise to raise several matters on this Adjournment motion that I hope the Government might be able to address before the Whitsun recess. I start by referring to a matter that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) touched on earlier when he referred to the publication today of the Health Committee's report on obesity, and the very compelling nature of that report. It provides a thorough critique of Government policy and a detailed analysis of the scale of the problem, and sets out 69 recommendations for action that should form the basis of the Government's programme for dealing with it. In the past 25 years, we have seen a 400 per cent. increase in obesity rates in this country. As we have found from the inquiry, we as a nation face huge health, care and cost consequences from obesity. We face the prospect of a generation of people, growing up today, whose life expectancies will be reduced to the point that they could predecease their parents. We have a growing number of people with type 2 diabetes and various other conditions of that sort.
	I hope that the Government will come forward at an early stage with their response to the Select Committee inquiry, not least because it makes important recommendations on one of the key battlefields in dealing with obesity: our schools, including canteens, playgrounds and classrooms. We must do more to educate our children on good diet and food preparation, and ensure that nutrition is central to the standards for the food served up in our canteens.

Paul Tyler: Is my hon. Friend aware that until quite recently the Cornwall school governors council conference was sponsored by McDonalds? Fortunately, I was able to assist it, and this year it has been sponsored by a local food manufacturer that I hope is more to my hon. Friend's taste. It is certainly much more to the taste of the school governors. Is he aware that such entryism is quite damaging to the good sense and judgment of governors on this matter?

Paul Burstow: The Committee recommended in its report that school governors and schools should develop nutrition polices, which would address issues of sponsorship as well as such issues as the encroachment of vending machines that purvey high-sugar fizzy drinks and crisps rather than good-quality food. A grazing culture and a fast-food culture have developed in this country, which have undoubtedly done much to fuel its obesity problems. I hope that we will soon have the opportunity to debate the report further, but it is clear that there will be huge costs as a result of doing nothing to tackle this country's obesity crisis. The Select Committee has offered a range of measures and options that could make a significant difference to the problem.
	I want to touch on two or three issues that are of serious concern to my constituents. The first, which five or six other hon. Gentlemen have mentioned in this debate, is postal services. I want to deal with specific issues concerning my constituency and the programme of closures rolling across urban Britain. I raised some of these concerns in an Adjournment debate in March 2003, and I am dismayed and concerned that we still have a programme that is shrouded in mystery and far too secretive in how it is going forward.
	Back in March 2003, I raised in an Adjournment debate my concern at the proposed closure, on a piecemeal basis, of Oldfields road post office.
	That news came as a real blow to my constituents, because just six months before its proposed closure, it had been nominated as one of the post offices that would remain open when Collingwood road post office was closed. So it came as a bit of a surprise to my constituents and me to discover that Oldfields road was next for the chop.
	My criticism then was of the piecemeal nature of the closure programme, so I asked the Government to discuss with the Post Office the possibility of adopting a more strategic approach that would allow us to see the totality of plans on the basis of constituency by constituency or local authority by local authority. I was delighted when that began to happen in September of last year, and I am very keen that, as Postwatch said, local authorities should be able to engage at the earliest opportunity with the Post Office in the development of area plans for closing local post offices.
	Despite Postwatch's recommending early discussions—even before the Post Office itself gets out into the field and considers which post offices might be candidates for closure—when my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and I wrote to the Post Office asking that it arrange such a meeting, we were told that it was too busy and on a tight timetable. Apparently, it could not spare the time to talk to local elected representatives about their view of the way in which postal services and communities could be affected by closures.
	The Post Office is now working through its proposals. It did the fieldwork in March and April, and it expects to publish its plans in July. Because the plans will be published then, they will be subject to consultation during the summer recess and throughout the summer, when many people will be unable to offer their comments on, and express their concerns about, the closure proposals. I hope that the Post Office will think again about the unfortunate timing of its consultation on proposed closures in my constituency and throughout the borough of Sutton.
	It has also been suggested that we need to consider the impact of the proposals on the local community, particularly in terms of levels of deprivation and access to public transportation to alternative venues. It is not clear that the Post Office is going to do sufficiently thorough work to reassure us that post offices will be closed in a manner that will minimise impact on the local community. I therefore suggested to my local authority that it undertake its own work, using geographic information mapping systems, local knowledge and a local audit, to draw up our own local authority view of which post offices are under threat of closure. That will be a very powerful tool in the consultation exercise.
	As other Members have said—it is true of my constituency and throughout the country—post offices in urban areas are often the linchpin of the economic viability of district shopping centres. If one pulls out that pin, many other businesses begin to tumble, and as a result district shopping centres lose their viability and vitality and close, to the detriment of the local community. I hope that we can persuade the Post Office, even at this late stage, to enter into meaningful dialogue with local authorities and Members of Parliament before its consultation proposals are published.
	I want to talk about two other issues, the first of which is the Post Office's extinguishing of a number of postal towns, some of which are exceptionally historic. One that should be resurrected is Cheam, which is in my constituency. Cheam is an historic parish that has a very well known connection with the Tudor period; indeed, Nonsuch palace is very nearby. Those of my constituents who live in that part of the constituency identify very strongly with Cheam, and they resent the fact that the Post Office has ceased to recognise Cheam as a postal town for the purposes of sorting and delivering the mail.
	The issue has provoked a very strong campaign in the Sutton Guardian, which ran a "Proud to be Cheam" campaign and generated a massive response to a petition that I undertook in Cheam village a few months ago. I received many letters on the subject—probably many more than I receive on most issues.
	The Post Office says that recognising Cheam would not be a good thing, because it would cause problems for the sorters and delay the delivery of letters. Many of my constituents already feel that they are suffering delays as a result of some of the reorganisations that have been going on of late.
	The Post Office went on to contradict itself in the letter that it wrote to me. It said that the inclusion of Cheam would help to avoid confusion where, for example, the address was High street, Cheam, or Broadway, Cheam or London road, Cheam. I think that we can avoid the confusion simply by recognising Cheam as a postal town, and that certainly seems to be the view of most of my constituents.
	When I was challenged by the Post Office to come up with a viable boundary for Cheam, I consulted my constituents on one that would use both the historic Cheam parish boundary and the electoral ward of Cheam. That seemed to carry favour with the vast majority of my constituents. I hope that, having put the proposal to the Post Office, it will not feel obliged to go through a labyrinthine process of balloting residents to get yet further confirmation that that is what is necessary. I hope that it will listen to the public and act and, as a result, deliver Cheam back to Cheam residents.
	I have a constituency case that I would like to draw to the attention of the Deputy Leader of the House, which I have the permission of the constituent to raise. Mr. Timothy North has been experiencing some difficulties with the Child Support Agency. He is in dispute with it about the amount that he has been assessed to pay. The matter has been before the courts, but it is not at the moment. He has had a liability order served against him, and in honouring and discharging it he recently paid a substantial sum of money. He then discovered that the money was not used to discharge the liability order, but was instead used to pay off an unrecoverable debt to the CSA. It surprised the courts no end when they learned about it, but nevertheless, according to due process, his liability order was increased because he had apparently not paid.
	On his departure from the court, my constituent was told by the barrister to the CSA not to pay the increased liability order until he received confirmation from the CSA that it would not use the money other than to discharge the order. My constituent has been pursuing the CSA since that date—well past the seven days that he was given to pay the money—to get that confirmation. Despite his best endeavours, he still has no such confirmation. He then contacted me. I had been dealing with the case for some time before this particular matter arose.
	My office contacted the CSA MPs' hotline on 6, 12 and 20 May and was reassured on each occasion that the matter was in hand. We were told that the letter had been written on 7 May, and that it had been posted second class on 10 May. It has still not arrived with my constituent. My constituent is at his wits' end over the matter. He has acted in good faith with the CSA. He has been left in an increasingly indebted situation. I hope that, after my raising the issue on the Floor of the House, the Minister might be able to kick the CSA into life and get the letter to my constituent. He does not live in Cheam, I hasten to add.
	My final two points relate to some stories in the local press in my constituency. One is about £600,000 that was spent on what has been described as a bus shelter, but is otherwise described as a covered walkway and bus shelter in St. Nicholas Way in Sutton. It has caused great agitation and anger among many of my constituents that such a large sum of money appears to have been spent on a bus shelter.
	The bus shelter comes from the transport strategy of the Mayor of London. It is part of phase 1 of the London bus initiative that the Mayor is keen to roll out across London. The scheme is intended to improve the quality of bus shelters around London. Many of my constituents think that the £600,000 has come out of their council tax, or that Sutton council has been responsible for raising and spending the money in what they consider a less than judicious way. I want to make it clear that £530,000 of the £600,000 bill came from Transport for London, the balancing figure of £70,000 came from a private developer, and Sutton council did not contribute any money directly to the project.
	I cannot begin to say how shocked I am that £600,000 is small change to Transport for London. It has failed properly to manage the project in a way that gives good value for taxpayers. It has failed to deliver the project on time and on budget. The project took longer to complete than it took to build a new supermarket in the same town—quite extraordinary, but nevertheless the case.
	The final point that I want to raise relates to health care issues, which are raised regularly in these debates. The proposal for the reorganisation of health care in my constituency is currently at the outline, business case stage. It involves bringing health care closer to home to ensure that more treatment is provided in local community hospitals—a very good and appropriate notion. A lot of day surgery, diagnostic and other procedures can be carried out that way.
	My concern, however, is that part of the package involves a move from two general hospitals to one critical care hospital, which raises the vexed question of where that critical care hospital might go. Four sites are being offered as possible candidates, obviously including the two existing general hospital sites. There is a great deal of competition, and Members of Parliament and constituents are demonstrating fierce loyalty to their respective local hospitals.
	I am anxious to put on record my concern about the threat hanging over St. Helier hospital, which serves my constituents, although it is not in my constituency but in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). St. Helier may well be downgraded to a local hospital and not become a critical care centre. Given its location near some of the most vulnerable, elderly and deprived people in the community that it serves, St. Helier is the most sensible option, in terms of transport and access, to provide a new critical care hospital fit for the 21st century. I hope that that will be the final outcome, and obviously plenty of lobbying on that will take place during the next few months.
	In conclusion, I hope that the Minister can give my constituents some comfort about post office closures in my constituency, that he can spark the CSA into action on behalf of my constituent, and that my constituents will be reassured that Sutton council is not the source of their complaints about bus shelters and covered walkways but that the Mayor of London and Transport for London ought to be in the firing line.

Oliver Heald: As usual with these debates, we have had an excellent opportunity to hear Members of Parliament take up issues on behalf of their constituents. We have heard some philosophical discussions about the role of Members of Parliament in connecting with the community outside. We have heard a range of national issues raised in the constructive way that often applies in these debates.
	I hope that the House will not mind if I congratulate my constituent, Viscount Trenchard, on taking up his seat in the House of Lords today. I am particularly pleased that my constituent was able to win the by-election that was necessary to achieve that result—happily, not by postal ballot.
	There has been great testimony to the work done in constituencies. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) spoke of some of the valuable work that can be done by Members of Parliament and said that they can be a force for good, to use his words. He mentioned the miners' compensation scheme and a number of other aspects. I felt that his view and philosophy were optimistic and constructive, and the House generally warmed to his theme.
	I am not sure whether the same can be said of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who took the opportunity to make a bid for more money for the Liberal Democrats. I am not sure whether that went down quite as well as the remarks of the hon. Member for Ogmore.
	Many Members mentioned post office closures. The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) raised something of particular concern in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) mentioned his concern about post office closures and referred to a letter that he had received from Rev. Galloway.
	I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), for Hornchurch (John Cryer) and for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) also mentioned post offices.
	The hon. Member for Hornchurch was right to say that the Government cannot escape the blame for the situation. Coupled with the Government's decision to scrap the order book and move elderly pensioners into the modern age of the personal identification number and the card, the urban reinvention programme, which provides Government money to encourage the closure of post offices, has undoubtedly made many post offices far less financially viable.

Paul Burstow: The hon. Gentleman mentioned scrapping the order book. Will he confirm that the decisions that set that in train were taken when the Conservatives were in office?

Oliver Heald: That is absolutely the opposite of the truth. I was a junior Minister in the Department for Social Security when we decided not to scrap the order book because we thought that chaos would follow. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is usually fairly knowledgeable on welfare matters, has been so misled.
	Continuing the theme of public services, colleagues on both sides of the House mentioned a number of issues. The Health Committee report on obesity is certainly important and should be debated. Mobile phone masts were also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West. There is no doubt that there has been considerable concern in the House in recent weeks and months about the impact of those masts. My hon. Friend introduced a ten-minute Bill on mobile phone masts, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) have promoted private Members' Bills on the subject. I have tabled an early-day motion on the ntl mast in Stamford avenue, Royston, which greatly concerns my constituents. I presented a petition against that mast and met representatives of ntl this week. It is time that the Government looked again at the siting of masts and whether it is possible to give councillors more control so that they can take account both of a mast's proximity to schools and of concerns about the associated health risks.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West also mentioned abortion, an important issue that perhaps should be discussed more often. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke about media matters. There was an element of motherhood and apple pie about his remarks on the importance of the BBC and its independence. Most of us would agree with him, but he also commented on the Spanish Government bullying Spain's public service broadcasters, which made me recall some of the evidence from the Hutton inquiry on the way in which Mr. Alastair Campbell operated. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman did not mention that inquiry.
	The hon. Gentleman also congratulated Channel 4 on its efforts to make its services available in Wales, although he thought that it should have better facilities for interviews. He did not like Sky and wanted more cable. He was particularly unfair on Ivor the Engine, and I hope he will withdraw those comments.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman failed to understand any of my points, which must be my fault, not his lack of intelligence. There is an important distinction between the Spanish public service broadcaster and the British public service broadcaster. Up until now, every new Government in Spain have sacked all senior staff of the public service broadcaster. In Britain, the director general and chairman of the BBC resigned, but the Government have no power to sack anyone in the public service broadcaster.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman makes his points in his own inimitable way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point made the important comment that the hon. Member for Rhondda had forgotten Max Boyce. That is another charge to lay at his door.
	My hon. Friend went on to make a point about yob culture and the importance of the police having adequate powers to take drink from young people in the street. He rightly highlighted the Government's failure to realise the importance of those powers as they relate to sealed containers. There is some dispute about the matter. I refer the House to the report of the proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill in Standing Committee F on 15 February 2001. In a debate on an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and me, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), the then Minister responsible for the police, said:
	"We are worried that the power proposed in the amendment"—
	which would have removed the exemption from seizure of sealed or unopened containers—
	"would go too far; power to seize sealed containers would bite on supplies purchased to drink at home. The power is designed to prevent drinking in public, hence the power to seize alcohol in open containers. It is open containers, glasses and bottles that are important to us here".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 15 February 2001; c. 227.]
	We said at the time that that was nonsense, and so it proved. I thought that it was useful to give that reference, and I am very happy to have done so.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point mentioned the joys of Hadleigh castle and the Dutch cottages on Canvey Island. I wish him luck with his lottery bid for the Canvey Island heritage centre and I hope that the reductions on c2c trains can be reversed. He congratulated civil servants, which is an important thing to do, particularly now that there are so many of them. I noticed this week that the public sector employment figures showed an annual increase of 150,000. I do not know whether the Minister has any more information about that, but I know that employment in the education sector went up by 88,000, yet the Department for Education and Skills is absolutely sure that there are only 4,000 extra teachers, so who are the other 84,000? If the Minister has found out, perhaps he will tell us.
	I join in the congratulations to Canvey Island FC on their triumphs.

Alan Hurst: They lost.

Oliver Heald: I am told that they lost the final, but they did get promoted, so we are entitled to say that they did pretty well.
	The hon. Member for Hornchurch made an important point about hospital closures, and I should be interested to hear the Minister's reply. He said that he is strongly opposed to the European constitution. He feels that it is an important factor in the public's disengagement from politics. That may be true in part, but the bigger problem is that in 1997 there was enthusiasm in politics. We were told that things could only get better, and the public bought into the Labour party's proposal. Things have, of course, got worse rather than better. There has been a failure of delivery throughout the country, and people now feel let down by Labour. That is the background to their disengagement from politics. [Interruption.] I do not think that even the hon. Member for Rhondda would agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall that the public are disengaged because the Liberal Democrats do not get enough Short money. National political issues are the reason for the public being disengaged, particularly from the Government, who have let them down.
	Many of the points made in this debate, such as those on hospital closures and the problem of the European constitution, relate to the failures of the Government. Almost every issue that we have heard about is a Government failure of one sort or another. The hon. Member for Braintree said that his hospital is now nine-to-five. It is not a Rolls-Royce service; one is almost tempted to say that it is more of a Lada under Labour.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) made an important point about insurance, and explained that the cost of insurance for small businesses has risen sharply. She highlighted the position of independent financial advisers, and we need to know exactly what the Government are going to do about the financial services compensation scheme. Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House can tell us about the review of insurance that is being conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions. He will know that at the moment the Government are supporting a private Member's Bill that would greatly increase the penalties for not having public liability insurance, so how does he square that with the difficulties that small businesses experience in getting cover? Can he point to anything that the Government have done successfully to address the problem? My hon. Friend also mentioned further education colleges. There has been a huge increase in the number of students attending North Hertfordshire college, but it has not had a concomitant increase in funding—my hon. Friend outlined exactly the same problem.
	The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) expressed concerns about Iraq, and I agree with the need to follow legal procedures and respect human rights in providing justice. He rightly welcomed the decision to refer a particular case to the Crown Prosecution Service. He gave an interesting interpretation of the Interbrew case, and concluded by talking about activism and pension funds. The National Association of Pension Funds, under Christine Farnish, has taken a robust line with companies, has argued strongly for good governance, has tried to press the case on rewards for directors and has demonstrated other examples of activism. I agree that trustees need better training, especially those nominated by members, and the Government should seek to address that issue.
	The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) raised a number of issues. The campaign for the postal town of Cheam is a good one, and the Sutton Guardian is right to be proud of the town. Good luck to Cheam, and let us hope that the campaign is successful. Last year, we had a popular campaign for Letchworth to be named Letchworth Garden City, and we succeeded, in the town's centenary year, in getting the name changed. We will have to hear what the relevant Minister says about the case that he mentioned involving the Child Support Agency, but there is a more general point to be made about the CSA. The Government have introduced simpler rules for the CSA, which have been applied to cases that are being processed now. However, a great number of existing cases have not been transferred to the new system. The Government are quite unable to say when that will take place, because their computer does not work. It would be helpful if the Deputy Leader of the House could tell us when "C day", as it is known, will finally come. Many of us would like to know that the new simpler rules that the Government boast about will apply to a large part of the case load.
	We have had a marvellous debate, which is typical of the occasion. In conclusion, we are lucky to have the staff of the Serjeant at Arms Department, who do so much to keep us safe and who recently have been criticised, very unfairly. We should pay tribute to them and their work, as well as to all the other staff of the House of Commons, the Doorkeepers and the Badge Messengers. I congratulate all of them on what they do for us, and wish everybody a happy Whitsun.

Phil Woolas: May I begin on a consensual note and endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald)? It is a tribute to the nature of this place that even in the middle of a robust election campaign Members can come to the House and raise constituency matters. A few hon. Members were tempted to cross the threshold and made unfair criticism of the Government and their success—none of them, I add, on our side. The link between the electorate and the single Member constituency, however, was shown to be very important indeed.
	We had early contributions about the reconnection of the public with Parliament. This debate is a good example of that. I endorse, too, the thanks to all the staff of the House for the important work that they do. Last Wednesday, when the incident took place, it struck me that we take it for granted that the Doorkeepers and police will eject such people. In doing so they are putting their lives in danger. For all they know they could be subject to an attack of the worst kind. That bravery should be recognised.
	I shall try to respond to all of the points made. Where I cannot I will indicate what I intend to do. Post offices came up at the last recess Adjournment debate. Five or six Members mentioned post offices today and two themes have come through. First, Members have legitimate worries about the process of consultation and their ability to get information. That is of concern. The second issue is whether the Government's overall policy is correct. It falls to me to put the other side of the argument which constituency Members are often unwilling to put forward or perhaps disagree with.
	Post offices have been closing for many decades. It is not a new political phenomenon; it is a response to changes in how business is done. I well remember campaigning on rural bank branches and being told that their closure programme would destroy the fabric of Britain—that the sky would fall in. In fact, where banks stayed open in unviable economic circumstances, the public stopped going into them. Instead of being centres of community activity, they became dinosaurs. The new technology of cash machines mean that more often than not people do not go into their local bank. Small businesses need banks for services, but on the whole some of the nice wine bars and bistros that have opened in old bank buildings do more to serve the community than an empty bank would. That is also the case with post offices.
	We can talk about whether the movement over to banking services provides adequate provision for the post office network to compete with the clearing banks, but if we had an absolutely level playing field of the Post Office subsidised and owned by the Government in competition with the high street banks, Members, particularly those on Opposition Benches, would be crying foul about unfair competition against the banks.
	We are trying to provide a strategy that ensures that we have a post office network. Perhaps hon. Members need to remember that most post offices are small independent businesses that franchise with the Post Office. If they decide in the best interests of their family and future well-being to change the nature of their business or close it, their contractual arrangements with the Post Office become very complicated. Surely it is better to have a strategy to maintain our post office network on a viable basis. People are increasingly drawing the benefits to which they are entitled electronically. We have to live with that fact.
	Three or four Members on both sides of the House made the proper point about concern for the elderly.
	Elderly people who have been going to their local post office, urban or rural, for years and feel secure there may be fearful of change being forced upon them. Of course we understand that. I would urge, as I am sure would my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services, that that be given greater significance in the consultations than may have been the case in some of the examples put before the House.
	I come to some of the themes raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I was grateful to him for his thanks. I try to follow up the points that hon. Members make. Perhaps we can stray over the line into party politics for a moment. The House may find it useful to know that in the past year the Conservatives received a grant of £3.5 million in Short money, trebling the amount to which they were entitled in 1997.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman want to scrap the grant? He might need it soon.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, demonstrates the triumph of optimism over reality. We shall see what the British people decide.
	The Liberal Democrats received a grant of £1.2   million, which is about a third of what the Conservative party achieved. In proportion to the numbers in the House, that seems a pretty fair allocation of Short money. Right hon. and hon. Members will ask on what the money has been spent. The idea is to improve policies and thus politics in this country. If I were Her Majesty looking at her loyal Opposition and the other Opposition party, I would ask myself whether the quality of the Opposition gave best value, which is the criterion we use for public expenditure, and whether the performance targets that are set for Short money were met. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House might like to consider introducing targets for the spending of Short money. That might lead to some exposure.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall spoke about the rise of the third party. It reminded me of the 1981 speech telling party members to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government. The hon. Gentleman came up with a wonderful quote, which he should have saved for his party conference, when there would have been applause rather than incredulity, as there was in the House. He said that in 1997 the Liberal Democrats had buried the two-party system and danced on its grave in 2001—a remarkably lovely quote and, like most Liberal virtual reality sloganising, I think we should put it down as the subject of an Adjournment debate in 20 years, like the David Steel speech from 1981.
	To be fair, the hon. Gentleman made some serious points about the changing nature of politics. The sands are shifting. The public are less tribal than in the past, and whatever our political ideologies and philosophies, it behoves all of us to show the value of politics to the public.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) made a thoughtful and intelligent speech and managed to weave a serious consensual point into some valid remarks about the successes of Labour politics and his point of view. We should all thank him for that speech.
	The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is a regular attender at these debates. On this occasion he raised seven issues. Last time it was nine. On the last occasion he mentioned his local paper three times. Today, he did not mention it once—[Interruption.] I apologise. I must not have been paying full attention. I shall respond briefly to his points.
	He raised the case of TOAST, a support group, and its funding problems, which I noted. I do not know whether police stations are closing or whether he is worried that they might close, but I am told that no plans exist to close any police stations in the Southend area. If that is not the case, I am sure that he will write to the Minister concerned.
	The hon. Gentleman raised general points about phone masts, which I shall try to cover. He also asked a specific question on behalf of a constituent, Mr. Frank Waters, about the Osteopaths Act 1993, which I will, of course, pass on to the Minister concerned and try to get a reply. He made some points about the implementation of the law on abortion in this country—he has his point of view, which he holds strongly. As he has done before, he raised the case of his constituent, Mr. Nawaz. I have been told that the information on that case must not be put into the public domain, but I will ensure that he receives it, because the matter is important.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a comprehensive and intelligent speech showing his knowledge of the broadcasting industry and his commitment to public service broadcasting, which is a strength for this country. He is a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and I know that the broadcasting organisations, which he listed, will note his remarks. It strikes me that if the Spanish situation had occurred here, Alistair Campbell would not have needed to write to Andrew Gilligan, because he could have picked up the phone and got him sacked. [Interruption.] He certainly did not try to do that.
	In the short time available, I shall try to cover as many of the other points as possible. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) again raised the issue of hospices. On that issue, he may know that each primary care trust receives an average of some £42 million. There are examples of extra money going into hospices, but his general point, which he made on behalf of Little Havens children's hospice, is well made. He discussed a number of issues, some of which were consensual and some of which were constituency points. On his particular point about c2c, I understand that changes have been made following discussions between the three railway companies operating in those regions. Again, I will make the Minister concerned aware of his points.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) regularly attends these debates, and he made a number of important points about the impact of steel prices and insurance premiums on his constituency, and also welcomed the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. He discussed his concerns about St. George's hospital, and put it on the record that the situation is unacceptable to him and his constituents, and Department of Health Ministers must take that point into account, which is something that they will want to do.
	In general, the changes to hospitals discussed in this debate are the problems of success. The changes are the consequences of an expanding hospital programme—10 or 20 years ago, there was a hospital closure programme. [Interruption.] The changes have occurred because new hospitals are being built and older hospitals on different sites have become redundant, so we are discussing the organisation of improvement. [Interruption.] Those are facts, which are stubborn things.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) made a number of points about fishing policy and raised his concern about the proposed work at height legislation in relation to mountaineers. His remarks are common sense, and I shall pass them on to the Minister concerned.
	I cannot answer every point, but I shall pick up on those that I have not covered. I wish every hon. Member and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a successful Whitsun recess.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Luncheon Clubs

Tony Colman: My constituents have suffered from cuts imposed by Wandsworth council to the funding of voluntary organisations, particularly luncheon clubs. Key within that is the work of Regenerate.com in Roehampton. I wish to present a petition signed by more than 4,000 residents, which reads:
	To the House of Commons,
	The petition of supporters of the Regenerate.com lunch club in Roehampton, London SW15
	Declares that Wandsworth Borough Council has said that lunch clubs are "a low priority in that they provide activities which do not provide a significant contribution" and have "a limited role"; that the Regenerate.com lunch club at Roehampton Methodist Church is a lifeline to many of its users, both enabling people to share their lives and build community, and helping to combat isolation in older age; that the closing of all lunch clubs in the Wandsworth area would be catastrophic.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons ask the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to exert pressure on Wandsworth Borough Council not to withdraw funding and other support for lunch clubs in the area.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Post Office Closures

Bob Spink: I refer hon. Members to the comments that I made on this subject yesterday and in the main debate today. The petition, which I totally support, states:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.
	The Humble Petition of Councillor Enid Isaacs and Cllr Norman Ladzrie and others of like disposition sheweth
	That there is great public concern caused by the proposal to close yet another local post office in Woodfield Road, Hadleigh which will damage our shopping areas and threatens the very fabric of our community, hurting vulnerable people the most and that this closure, coming after so many other Post Office closures, is insensitive.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to change its policies on Post Office closures and the provision of banking services and payment of benefits and pensions so that Post Offices are able to remain open in our community.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

Maajid Nawaz

David Amess: I have the honour to present a petition that has been signed by a large number of my constituents, including church leaders, in support of a plea for clemency to President Mubarak. The petition states:
	The petition of Mrs. Abi Nawaz and others
	Declares that Maajid Nawaz travelled to Egypt on a compulsory exchange course from his university and was subsequently detained along with two other British boys—on groundless charges—by the State Security Services; that he has been tried and sentenced; and that Amnesty International and other organisations are investigating practices undertaken by the Egyptian authorities which, it is alleged, violate human rights standards.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to do all in its power to secure the early release of Maajid and his friends.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

HOUSING MARKET RENEWAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

David Wright: I am pleased to be able to raise the important issue of housing market renewal. Before I begin, I should declare that I am a member of the Chartered Institute of Housing. As I have told the House on several occasions, I pay it money rather than receiving any financial benefit myself, but as I will be commenting on some of its work, I should place that on the record.
	Before I develop the theme of the debate, I should like to mention that my good friend Councillor Jim Hicks is at this very moment being made mayor of Telford and Wrekin council. I wish him all the best for the coming year.
	Councillor Hicks is interested in housing market renewal and he was pleased to know that I had secured an Adjournment debate.
	Thankfully, the renewal of housing markets and the development of sustainable communities is moving up the political agenda. To put it simply, sustainable communities are the bedrock of a decent, tolerant and inclusive society and the stability of housing markets is central to that. I want to concentrate on five key themes: the complexity of housing markets; the importance of investment in neighbourhoods; the role of the housing market renewal pathfinders; the opportunities to learn from the new towns experience—that is especially important to me, given that I represent Telford; and the need for a national strategy for housing market restructuring and the subsequent creation in short order of a "midlands way."
	Housing markets are complex and need a range of interventions by the public and private sectors and local residents to make them balanced and sustainable. Housing markets change because of several factors that affect the desirability of neighbourhoods. Market decline can occur in small pockets and/or in swathes of a town or city. It is not limited to large metropolitan areas; it can happen anywhere.
	Areas where the housing market is generally dysfunctional exhibit several characteristics. There will be obsolete housing stock, which does not meet the needs of the local community. The design of the stock and the surrounding environment will be failing. The private rented sector will be in decline or badly managed and regulated. There will often be a mismatch between the supply and demand of house types—for example, too many high-rise flats or systems-built dwellings and not enough large family homes. Often, significant change will be taking place in the local economy. There will be poor quality mixed-tenure stock and, in many areas, a desire among residents to leave, with consequent problems of population churning and the associated impact on other services such as schools and social services.
	The scale of the problem can be as small as a collection of streets or encompass whole wards or larger areas in a town or city. We need to tackle those problems by talking to people about their neighbourhood and confronting the key characteristics that I outlined.
	My second point is about investing in neighbourhoods, which is crucial if we are to create communities that are economically, socially and environmentally successful. Investment in housing and the urban forum will be central to that approach. Regenerating communities and providing housing market stability is also a route through which we can engage local people and, having listened to the previous debate, hopefully reconnect them to civic life and structures. Much of the casework that comes through my surgery is linked to housing market change, whether it is people who need housing or those who are coping with the environmental problems of neighbourhoods in decline.
	We need to break the cycle of decline through comprehensive market renewal linked to wider regeneration programmes and restructuring local economies. There is undoubtedly a need to develop more quality homes for rent and sale in this country. The Barker review indicates that we need to build significant numbers of new dwellings each year to tackle change in the UK housing market—120,000 private sector homes per year and 21,000 social housing units per year for several years. That is not, as some have tried to portray, an issue between north and south. Poor housing needs to be cleared and estates redesigned across the country. Redevelopment is also needed, with high-quality new homes for rent and sale. The National Housing Federation, the Chartered Institute of Housing and the Local Government Association have proposed a building programme of 140,000 extra homes by 2007–08, costing some £8.4 billion. I hope that that will be considered carefully as part of the spending review process. The proposal forms part of their submission.
	Thirdly, the creation of the nine housing market renewal pathfinders was a major statement of intent by the Government that they take housing investment and policy development seriously. Tackling problems in these areas will need major, long-term engagement by the private sector, and local people will need to invest in their homes and communities. The £500 million allocated will significantly pump prime the process.
	However, each area will need continuing investment in order to deliver, because they are at different stages of development and they need time to become self-sufficient. So we need to focus on those areas extremely carefully and to learn from their experience in delivering housing market renewal. We also need to integrate their approach into our wider policy understanding of housing.
	My fourth point is that we have a lot to learn from the new town experience in regard to the development of sustainable communities. Telford had a massive programme of new building based on the neighbourhood unit theory formulated by US planners in the 1920s. The problem that we are confronting now is that the investment in the infrastructure of many of the areas that were built over a short period of time has not been sustained for some years. Several estates in south Telford, including Sutton Hill, Woodside, Brookside and Malinslee, were built using the 1920s model, in which the estate was surrounded by a circular road network and local facilities were provided at the centre of the estate. That design layout has come to be known as a Radburn estate.
	Those estates were excellent, and they provided superb accommodation for many people, including the large numbers moving out of the black country whom Telford was designed to take as overspill population. However, there was a lack of sustained investment in those estates throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Most of those housing areas are now between 30 and 40 years old and they are all falling into decline at the same time. I shall go on to talk about some of the positive things that we are doing to arrest that decline, and I hope that lessons can be learned for other areas.
	The new town experience shows us that we need to take a comprehensive approach to infrastructure provision and to sustain investment in housing stock and public amenities over time. We are now starting to get that right in Telford through a partnership between the council, English Partnerships, the Housing Corporation, the private sector and, most importantly, local communities. This involves an understanding of local estates and their market dynamic, and we need to ensure that regeneration initiatives are comprehensive and that they incorporate investment in the social and economic infrastructure of communities.
	In Woodside, for example, we are changing the structure of a large Radburn estate through a unique approach which I hope can be replicated elsewhere, and investing in a major new multi-use community facility in the centre of the estate funded via a partnership with Advantage West Midlands. That community centre will, I hope, bring a range of services—including NHS dentistry, about which we have heard a lot recently—into a new centre for residents of that community. Our approach also involves reconnecting the estate to the older centre of Madeley, and regenerating that town to ensure that it can provide shopping and community facilities for the wider south Telford area.
	We now need to use the experiences developed in Woodside and to transfer them to other estates in Telford, and other estates across the UK, from which we can also learn, but we need resources from the regional housing board and a recognition that pockets of deprivation that do not show up on larger deprivation indices also need investment. Telford will be central to the development of a regional housing market renewal strategy. We are delivering more than 6,000 new mixed-tenure units through the work of English Partnerships and the local authority, along with clearance and estate remodelling in older housing areas. This is allied to proposals comprehensively to remodel Telford town centre so that it can build on its reputation as a regional shopping centre. We hope to make it a focal point for cultural activity and evening entertainment with new living environments of the highest quality. It is in towns such as Telford that we will meet the housing targets for the west midlands. We are about to embark on the second phase of the comprehensive renewal and redevelopment of Telford. At 40 years old, Telford is middle aged, but I hope that it is fighting fit.
	My final point is that the nine pathfinders are very important because, as I have said, they provide a route through which we can mainstream market renewal. They do not, however, constitute a comprehensive national strategy for housing market restructuring that would enable the Government to meet their own policy targets by providing a funding and policy framework in mixed-tenure areas, promoting community cohesion, sustainability and regeneration in areas of privately owned and rented homes, and ensuring that links are made with wider regeneration initiatives.
	There are many areas not covered by the pathfinders, which are now being identified by the regional housing boards. The communities plan acknowledged that the nine pathfinders cover half the dwellings identified as at risk of market dysfunction and community abandonment. The remaining dwellings are not covered by any specific national strategy or funding mechanism, which clearly needs to be addressed. The problems are at their worst in the midlands and the north, but there are dysfunctional markets across the whole country. As one goes around London, one sees pockets of housing market dysfunction next to areas of very high-cost housing. It is not a north-south issue; there are dysfunctional housing markets across the board, although the pressure is most significant in the midlands and the north.
	In advance of this work, a national strategy perspective has been developed by the National Housing Federation and the Chartered Institute of Housing, with support from the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, and a number of case study areas, including Telford and the black country, Tees valley, West Yorkshire and Furness and west Cumbria. The NHF and CIH envisage that a national strategy would be built on the following main principles: to create sustainable communities in areas of actual or potential market collapse; to manage planned interventions over a number of years; to lever in as much private funding as possible; to maximise housing money by matched funding from other related pots; to create and/or support effective and efficient delivery vehicles and mechanisms; to enable public sector programmes to be delivered in areas of housing market stability; and to link housing activity with complementary physical and social regeneration initiatives.
	We need to produce a national strategy for housing market restructuring that is led by the regional housing boards. I am not suggesting that we need a top-down approach. We need national leadership, but we need regional housing boards to identify areas where housing markets are dysfunctional and to put forward proposals and co-ordinate activity to make significant change. They will marshal the resources from the public and private sector. Delivery on the ground needs to be via a range of partnership vehicles that fit the needs of individual areas. There will be no one-size-fits-all approach in relation to this debate; it will depend on what local people want, and what can be delivered in local areas.
	The NHF, the CIH and the Local Government Association suggest a £350 million pot of public resources over the lifetime of the spending review period, as an addition to, and a ring-fenced element of, the single housing pot. That approach recognises the regional perspective in understanding complex housing markets. I welcome the proposals to merge regional planning and housing boards, which emanate from the debate around the Barker review. That is a major step forward in terms of our housing and planning policy. It always seemed nonsensical that a series of housing professionals were meeting separately from their planning colleagues, discussing an approach to regenerating communities and dealing with dysfunctional housing markets, so I welcome the Minister's recent comments in that regard. Each region needs to develop its own approach to delivering national objectives, and we may need to create building blocks across the regions. I should like to see the development of a midlands way, to mirror the excellent northern way proposals produced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
	I look forward to the Minister's response. I know that she is extremely interested in and committed to this area, and that she wants to deliver change for communities. Her own area suffers from some of the problems that I have been talking about, and we need a comprehensive national strategy to tackle market instability and the dysfunctional nature of many housing markets. There is a real prize, however, if we get it right. Not only can we regenerate communities and invest heavily in them, but we can reconnect those communities with the wider civic process and wider civic life. Nothing engages communities more than talking about their neighbourhood, the streets in which they live, and how they interact with their neighbours. This is a much wider agenda than just investing in infrastructure and fabric; it is a mechanism through which we can also make communities more sustainable, and reinvigorate the political process that takes place within communities.

Yvette Cooper: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I know that he has long experience and expertise in housing, as was evident in what he said not just about low demand but about wider issues. I agree with much of what he said, particularly on the importance of sustainable communities and the need to treat housing issues as part of broader concerns for communities rather than thinking only of the physical structure of housing stock.
	As my hon. Friend says, the signs of low demand can be very obvious and can cause considerable problems for communities. They include boarded-up houses and abandoned streets, and they are magnets for petty crime and vandalism. There are also less visible problems for those who cannot afford to leave such areas. Children's education suffers, for instance. School rolls fall. It can be hard to find work, there is poorer health, and local services decline.
	My hon. Friend is also right in suggesting that areas of low demand have often been the subject of regeneration approaches that have not been effective for a number of reasons, even when they have been well intentioned. Those examples are worth learning from, and both the pathfinder programmes and our broader approach across the country should take account of them.
	I do not think that those earlier approaches provided the right links between economic and housing issues. A regeneration programme might look at housing stock but ignore the fact that as there were no jobs in areas of low demand people would inevitably want to move away to find work, or suffer a series of social problems that would be concentrated on the area as a result of high unemployment. Alternatively, the approach would focus on economic regeneration and help people to find jobs. They would then leave, because they did not wish to live in an area where housing stock problems were not addressed. Then again, the approach might concentrate too much on social housing without taking account of the private rented sector and the private housing market; or it might fail to see housing as part of a wider market and a wider sub-regional issue. People's decisions about whether to stay in an area might depend on what alternatives there were, not in the next street but perhaps across district boundaries.
	We have tried to incorporate all those aspects in our current approach to the housing market. The nine market renewal pathfinders are intended to tackle the low-demand problems of the most acutely affected areas. They bring together local authorities and stakeholders with the aim of developing long-term holistic solutions linking wider economic issues with issues of housing infrastructure. Six of the nine have been awarded grant of nearly half a billion pounds; £48 million has already been spent, and is starting to bring benefits to the communities involved.
	The programmes concentrate on sustainable housing, the refurbishment of poor housing, the demolition of obsolete property and better management of estates. They take account of the nature of housing stock and housing supply and of the nature of demand—not just the level of demand, but the types of home that people want. They may want flats, or they may want family houses. The programmes also take account of the nature of the local economy and the community pressures that may exist. We are beginning to share the lessons that pathfinders have given us with areas affected by low demand and abandonment.
	My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that low demand mainly affects small pockets of areas—even areas with a thriving housing market. There may be problems involving specific houses in a street or on an estate. A spiral of decline may be linked with antisocial behaviour or poor housing management in the private or the social housing sector. In larger areas, there may be wider problems caused by broader economic factors.
	The pathfinders have concentrated on the widest areas of low demand and the most intense problems, but my hon. Friend is right that the lessons of the pathfinders need to be applied not simply to those areas, but to the small pockets of low demand.
	I was interested in my hon. Friend's points about the new towns experience, which can be relevant in two ways: first, in terms of the lessons of the new towns and their success in building sustainable communities from a standing start in many cases; and secondly, in terms of the problems that they can face with housing stock. They may face similar problems at a similar period and that brings pressures.
	We are putting a package of measures in place to equip local authorities with the powers to tackle low demand, including in smaller pockets, whether they are in a pathfinder area or not. Those include the provisions in the Housing Bill for selective landlord licensing to improve management in the private rented sector and to deal with bad landlords in that sector. The Housing Corporation is helping housing associations working in partnership with local authorities to improve and to stabilise local housing markets. The new tools approach is in place. New compulsory purchase measures in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 should assist authorities to deliver the step change that is needed in some areas.
	We have published a housing market assessment manual that provides a framework for the analysis of local housing markets, and we want such tools to be used by local authorities in addressing particular low-demand problems in particular areas.
	My hon. Friend talked about the progress that was being made in Telford. I welcome the work that he and local partners, including the borough council, have done to regenerate the south Telford estates, particularly in the housing strategy, and the progress that the local partnership has made in the Woodside estate. I was interested in his point about community facilities being a key part of regenerating the area. It is important that other areas should be able to learn the lessons from areas where innovative approaches are being taken, such as Telford.
	The West Midlands regional housing board has provided funding for a housing market renewal study covering that area. A total of £1 million has been invested to research the areas where there is potential for housing market failure. We should also look at the issues that link different areas of low demand. We are looking more widely at the problem of low demand. We have the pathfinders and individual tools in place for smaller pockets of low demand.
	I was interested in the submission from the National Housing Federation and the Chartered Institute of Housing about how it may be possible to go further and to put together a national low-demand strategy. Many aspects of their submission and many points that my hon. Friend raised reflect many aspects of Government thinking. We recognise that there are areas that are not currently included in the pathfinders where problems of low demand may emerge in future. The right response can deal with problems at an early stage, rather than leaving areas to face a spiral of decline.
	Many of the points that my hon. Friend has made and that were made in the submission are already being taken up by English Partnerships, the Housing Corporation or the Government offices to support strategic approaches in different areas. While many of the principles that he raised are important in terms of the approach that needs to be taken in different areas, we need to maintain the strongly regional and sub-regional approach to these issues.
	I do not think that there is a uniform national approach that can be applied to that kind of problem. It is exactly those local factors that need to be picked up if we are to address the specific problems that areas face. The issues that are faced in the east Lancashire programme, for example, will be different from those faced in Merseyside. There are different pressures in different places, caused by the nature of the housing stock and by local economic pressures.
	Wider lessons need to be learned and we are looking closely at how to take the issue forward. We are considering, as part of the spending review discussions, a future programme of resources. We also need to ensure the regional elements, and to empower regional bodies to consider the issue and address it effectively. That is why I was interested in my hon. Friend's points about the Midlands Way, which he has raised before. We are interested in that sort of scheme. The more we have a strong regional identity, with each region driving forward its own proposals, working with the regional housing and planning structures as well as the regional development agency, the more chance we have of getting effective local solutions. Perhaps it is through future partnerships between the regional development agencies and the housing and planning sides that we have the greatest potential to address the issue in the right way, instead of repeating our mistake of concentrating either on the economic side or on the housing infrastructure side, and never the twain shall meet.
	We already have a framework in place and we have made considerable progress, although there are further lessons to be learned. There are certainly lessons to be learned as the pathfinders begin their work, and there are lessons to be applied to other fields, too. We are now considering what the approach should be in some of the areas outside the pathfinder areas, and I am happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend as we have further discussions in the Department and across Government. My hon. Friend has important expertise and experience on this matter, and I welcome the points that he has made this evening. It is welcome that Telford is leading the way and coming forward with different innovative ideas to address these issues. We need to ensure that we learn from that in future.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend again on securing the debate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Seven o'clock.